Goats and Soda : NPR

The United Nations headquarters building in New York. This week, the United States announced it would withdraw from 31 United Nations agencies, including UN Women and the United Nations Population Fund.

Daniel Slim/AFP/via Getty Images

hide caption

toggle caption

Daniel Slim/AFP/via Getty Images

That of President Trump decree The United States’ withdrawal from 66 international organizations, agencies and commissions is reverberating around the world. Many people working on the international scene are analyzing this order and working to understand its implications and impact.

“This is a ridiculous and dangerous, thoughtless and malicious action,” says Nina Schwalbésenior fellow at the Georgetown Center for Global Policy and Politics, who has criticized the Trump administration’s global health budget cuts.

“He withdrew from the World Health Organization [almost a year ago]which was the first sign of its withdrawal from multilateralism. He cut down a tree. Now it’s cutting down the entire forest,” she says. “The implications will go far and wide – from children’s education to climate change to art and culture. He just took a bazooka and blew everything up.”

Others had the opposite view. Brett Schaefera UN expert at the American Enterprise Institute, would have liked to see the United States withdraw from more organizations – and larger organizations. “I see it as a missed opportunity,” he says.

Recalling Trump’s promise to reevaluate how the United States engages with international organizations, Schaefer said: “This is, in my opinion, a narrowing of the margins. The largest recipients of U.S. funding in the United Nations system are largely unaccounted for by this executive order. »

He said the number of 66 is impressive, but many specific organizations are “very small and obscure.” He added: “I was disappointed.”

A declaration said the secretary-general “regrets” the White House announcement and added: “As we have consistently emphasized, contributions to the United Nations regular budget and the peacekeeping budget, as approved by the General Assembly, are a legal obligation under the United Nations Charter for all member states, including the United States.”

Here are the details of that announcement – ​​and the potential ramifications.

What is in the decree?

The order, signed by Trump on Wednesday, says the organizations he is withdrawing from are “undermining America’s independence and wasting taxpayer dollars on ineffective or hostile programs.”

From the 66 organizations named in the decree, 31 are United Nations entities. Some are more publicized, like UN Women; the United Nations Population Fund, which addresses sexual and reproductive health; and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Others are less well known, such as the Office of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Violence Against Children.

The withdrawal list does not include some of the main UN agencies, such as the United Nations Children’s Fund or UNICEF.

Rubio’s justification – and a rebuttal

Secretary of State Marco Rubio presented these decisions not only as a saving of American taxpayer dollars, but also as an unnecessary expenditure of energy in international forums.

“It is no longer acceptable to send the blood, sweat and treasure of the American people to these institutions, with little or nothing to show for it,” Rubio said in a declarationadding that the organizations were “mismanaged, wasteful, wasteful and mismanaged.” He echoed Trump’s statement that the organizations’ interests are “adverse” to those of the United States.

This surprised Payal Shah. “We really have to ask ourselves: What are we claiming our country stands for? If we say that these institutions, which aim to promote equality and protect vulnerable populations, are contrary to our interests,” says Shah, director of research and legal work at Physicians for Human Rights.

Schwalbe worries about another consequence of the United States’ withdrawal from many international organizations: “[It] leaves a door wide open for Chinese domination of the UN system and processes.

A blow to climate concerns

Although not unexpected, a significant withdrawal is the United States’ withdrawal from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change or UNFCCC. Over the past three decades, the UNFCCC has served as the legal basis for global efforts to limit heat emissions. THE treated requires rich countries to regularly report on their climate change policies and submit an annual inventory of their greenhouse gas emissions.

The UNFCCC was ratified by the US Senate in 1992 under former President George HW Bush. Critics say that by withdrawing, the United States loses its ability to shape global climate initiatives. The Environmental Defense Fund said in a statement that “once the withdrawal takes effect one year after signing, the United States will be the only country not participating in the UNFCCC.”

The move is the latest attempt to exclude the United States from global climate efforts. For example, Trump refused to send a delegation to the UN climate negotiations last year in Brazil. And the president has already withdrawn the United States from the Paris Agreement, which set a goal of limiting global warming to 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit above pre-industrial levels.

The Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental group, notes that the United States could rejoin the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement under a future administration.

Does this mean the United States is done with the United Nations?

This week’s announcement didn’t surprise many people.

“This is something that we who follow the UN have been waiting for in one way or another for a few months,” says Daniel Forti, head of UN affairs at the International Crisis Group.

The move is the latest in a series of moves by the Trump administration to distance the United States from multilateral organizations — groups in which many countries work together to solve global problems.

“There is a perception [in the administration] that many of these international organizations were dominated by a progressive ideology – particularly focused on gender equality, environmental issues and climate change,” says Thomas Bollykydirector of the Global Health program at the Council on Foreign Relations. “And this is an effort to move the United States away from these places. But we get very little in return for what we’ve done, certainly not a lot of financial savings, and not a lot of resource savings.”

Forti and others agree that the United States is not withdrawing from the UN entirely. The administration continues to participate in the UN Security Council and is a donor to UNICEF and the World Food Program.

And the AEI’s Schaefer points out that the United States has announced funding for several multilateral organizations, including the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Bollyky notes that the United States wants to address issues on the agenda of groups on the withdrawal list – counterterrorism, energy, child trafficking and health – but outside the international system.

The Trump administration is emphasizing bilateral agreements – made directly between the United States and another country – as a new strategy for these issues. But Bollyky cautions that there are limits: After months of negotiations, the administration has so far reached agreements with only nine African countries in health care alone. He says multilateral groups already enjoy support from many countries, even those with which the United States is not friends.

The withdrawal “will have daily effects on Americans because it is difficult to make progress on health, climate, environmental or anti-terrorism challenges which, by nature, transcend borders,” he said.

What are the consequences?

Beth Schlachter says the withdrawals will have impacts on the ground. She works for the global charity MSI Reproductive Choices, which aims to improve access to reproductive services in 36 countries. The US had already cut off funding to the UN Population Fund before this week’s official withdrawal – with “profound” consequences.

“There have been clinics closed, doctors put out of work, nurses and community health workers no longer available. [Medical] supplies are no longer on the shelves,” she says. “We are seeing pregnant women who are now transmitting HIV to their unborn children or fetuses. It was catastrophic.”

She says withdrawing from the agency completely will further undermine its legitimacy. “Free of charge [it] continues to undermine the integrity of the UN itself,” says Schlachter.

A representative for the United Nations Population Fund told NPR that he had not been informed of the U.S. withdrawal and would not be able to comment.

Although the United States continues to participate in many international organizations, Forti says these withdrawals send a clear message to other countries: “The symbolism is unmistakable. It’s that the United States really wants to dictate its own terms to the rest of the multilateral system and wants to work with the UN in a way that actually sets the agenda. »