Inside Geneva
Inside Geneva is a podcast about global politics, humanitarian issues, and international aid, hosted by journalist Imogen Foulkes. It is produced by SWI swissinfo.ch, a multilingual international public service media company from Switzerland.
Inside Geneva
Donald Trump, the UN and the future
With Israel banning UNRWA and the US planning to withdraw from WHO, our Inside Geneva podcast reports on a turbulent couple of weeks for United Nations agencies.
In Gaza, Israel’s ban on the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) has come into effect.
“UNRWA is what we call the backbone of the humanitarian operation. Meaning that they not only bring in aid themselves, but they are also the operation on which all other humanitarian actors depend,” says Jorgen Jensehaugen from the Peace Research Institute Oslo (PRIO).
US President Donald Trump has also announced that the US will leave the World Health Organization (WHO).
“This is going to mean that all of the vital work of the WHO – polio eradication, AIDS, TB and malaria – will be even more underfunded,” continues Lawrence Gostin, professor of Global Health Law at Georgetown University in the United States.
Trump has also ordered a freeze on US foreign aid.
“The 90-day suspension is a death sentence for many small NGOs who simply don’t have the finances to weather this period,” says Colum Lynch, a senior global reporter for Devex, a media platform for the development community.
Where does that leave the UN’s humanitarian work?
“I think there is an increasing disrespect for what the UN stands for,” says Jensehaugen.
“This is really the end of foreign aid as we know it,” concludes Lynch.
Join host Imogen Foulkes on our Inside Geneva podcast.
Get in touch!
- Email us at insidegeneva@swissinfo.ch
- Twitter: @ImogenFoulkes and @swissinfo_en
Thank you for listening! If you like what we do, please leave a review or subscribe to our newsletter.
For more stories on the international Geneva please visit www.swissinfo.ch/
Host: Imogen Foulkes
Production assitant: Claire-Marie Germain
Distribution: Sara Pasino
Marketing: Xin Zhang
This is Inside Geneva. I'm your host, imogen Foulkes, and this is a production from Swissinfo, the international public media company of Switzerland.
Speaker 2:In today's program, the Israeli UN ambassador says the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine refugees in the Near East must cease all its operations and evacuate all premises it operates.
Speaker 3:UNRWA is what we call the backbone of the humanitarian operation. They are really the operation which all other humanitarian actors depend on.
Speaker 4:As part of his blitz of executive orders issued yesterday, President Trump also delivered on a campaign promise to withdraw the United States from the World Health Organization.
Speaker 3:What is this withdrawing from?
Speaker 2:the World Health Organization. Sir Ooh, that's amazing. 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.
Speaker 1:The Trump administration has issued a halt to nearly all existing foreign aid.
Speaker 5:The 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 yeah, shock and awe Late. Today the US State Department suspended all foreign assistance around the world for at least three months.
Speaker 2: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.
Speaker 4:Donald Trump suspended American foreign aid on day one of his presidency.
Speaker 3:We've had periods in the past where Republican US presidents have made statements to the effect that they'll stop funding the UN. They want to pull out of the UN, and the UN pulled through. So we're into difficult times.
Speaker 5:There will be some testing years, I 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.
Speaker 1: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. Strategy is having a significant effect on humanitarian operations. The first is something we were expecting.
Speaker 1:Israel's ban on the UN Relief Agency for Palestinians, or UNRWA, came into effect just days ago.
Speaker 1:Then later in the programme, we'll hear from renowned public health professor, lawrence Gostin, about the US decision to leave the World Health Organisation. Lawrence Gostin about the US decision to leave the World Health Organization, and we'll talk to US-based foreign policy journalist, Colin 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 7th 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 UNRWA, 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. Jürgen Jensehaugen of the Peace Research Institute Oslo has written a report looking at the effect of banning UNRWA, and he began by telling me that even as the ban came into force, it remained unclear how it would work.
Speaker 3:Well, 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 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 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're getting to 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.
Speaker 1: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.
Speaker 3:UNRWA has been providing would be quite disastrous. 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 health care 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 really good and necessary. The operation for distribution is being picked apart at the same time.
Speaker 1:Well, the other UN humanitarian agencies, as you say, they do operate, but 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 have been better to come up with a Plan B?
Speaker 3: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 the 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 principal 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.
Speaker 3: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's really a catch-22, the tension between the principle 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 a really negative spiral really either way, other actors in other conflicts and other contexts to also think about expelling the UN. So it kind of opens a really negative spiral really either way, and so it's a really difficult position for the UN to be in.
Speaker 1: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 they pretty much run the education system, the schools I mean. That I imagine would be very hard to replace.
Speaker 3:I mean I think we would be talking about an 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 the sense that it actually runs schools.
Speaker 1:So you know, asking somebody else to run the schools. Well, who's that going to be? 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.
Speaker 3:Now studies into that have not really borne out Israel's criticisms.
Speaker 3:Now, studies into that have not really borne out Israel's criticisms.
Speaker 3:But if UNRWA wasn't there, does that not leave the door open to possibly the kind of 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 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.
Speaker 1: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 anymore and would say the kind of things that you're saying are really just not addressing the problem.
Speaker 3:So 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 had seen the evidence, they started 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 an 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.
Speaker 3: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. 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 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.
Speaker 1: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 in how the UN can function all over the world?
Speaker 3: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?
Speaker 1:we have seen, for example, now the new administration in the United States withdraw from the World Health Organization. And interestingly, we've seen Elise Stefanik, the new US ambassador to the United Nations, basically say we like UNICEF and we like the World Food Programme 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.
Speaker 3:I think you're absolutely right. I think there is increasing disrespect for what the UN stands for, and I think Israel has really been not just vocal but active, 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, you know, 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.
Speaker 1:Can it survive? Do you think can the UN survive this kind of strain?
Speaker 3:I really hope so. We've had periods in the past where typically Republican US presidents have made statements to the effect that they will you know 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 it will be some testing years, I think.
Speaker 1:Testing years for the United Nations ahead, says Jürgen Jensehaugen 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 DC 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.
Speaker 2: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 a 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.
Speaker 1: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.
Speaker 2:I believe so. Funding is a big part of it, but it's not the only part.
Speaker 4:The.
Speaker 2:United States funds roughly 20% of WHO's budget, and WHO 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 CDC's, 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 really worldwide.
Speaker 1:But for 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 has with WHO?
Speaker 2: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 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 or 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 the essential data that WHO routinely shares with the world.
Speaker 1:Do you feel for your colleagues at the Centre for Disease Control who apparently have been told this week to cease all contact with the World Health Organization with immediate effect?
Speaker 2:I do. It is a very, very sad day for CDC and CDC staff. I will just say a couple of things First.
Speaker 2: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. My very close friend, Tony Fauci, had his security detail taken away by President Trump, which seems to be pure vindictiveness. But I think, beyond the staff at CDC, it's important to understand that the work that they do is important work.
Speaker 2: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, 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 things, 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 US 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.
Speaker 1:I'm wondering, though you have been, as I said, quite vocal in your concern and opposition 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?
Speaker 2:Yes, a little bit. Yes, a little bit. You know 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. 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 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.
Speaker 1: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 Elise Stefanik, the new US ambassador to the UN, talking about only being interested in UN bodies that serve American interests, which is, as I'm sure you're aware, not quite the purpose 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?
Speaker 2:Yeah, no, I don't think Trump would leave the United Nations, the US has a veto in the Security Council. So I don't think he'll do that, but I do think he will leave a number of UN specialized agencies like WHO, and 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 I think the international community will survive. They will survive this. I'm absolutely confident of that.
Speaker 2: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 cleaner, louder voice in international negotiations. So I see that there could be benefits. But overall it's horrible that the United States is not engaging, but we'll survive it. 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.
Speaker 1: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 Colm if the UN in New York shared the dismay of Geneva.
Speaker 5: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 there 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.
Speaker 5: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 unfolded. So 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 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 yeah, shock and awe.
Speaker 1:What do you think Trump's strategy is? I mean, people here in Geneva are asking I mean, is it even a strategy?
Speaker 5: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, 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 entire sort of industrial humanitarian development system. It's hard to see how it functions without US funding. So they have leverage to break the rules, to stretch the charter in a way that really pushes the limits of international law.
Speaker 5: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 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 him a lot of grief, particularly with the group of 77 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 having drunk the Kool-Aid, as becoming too much a part of the UN system, and politically that was, I think. For the Americans that was fine. And so now here we are again in a situation where I think an administration is willing to go much further than wearing an American flag on their lapel.
Speaker 1:You think they could finish off the UN, this administration?
Speaker 5:I don't know, you know, like I, just over the years, the UN, 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 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 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 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 UN, you know, if you remember, I mean Don't you think he even knows what it is?
Speaker 5: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 then Ambassador, nikki Haley, would arrange high level meetings where he-ambassador Nikki Haley would arrange high-level meetings where he could be the big dog. I remember him going to the leadership luncheons. He loves that stuff and I don't think he has any sort of inherent hostility towards the UN. 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 wants.
Speaker 5:And that's not just Trump, that's every administration. I mean. 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 UN? I you know, I don't know, because, like the image of the Americans blowing up the whole thing, it's not great for the Americans, right? And there are some people in the administration who, I think, understand that.
Speaker 1: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?
Speaker 5:I don't think the humanitarian community in Geneva should take heart at all. I mean, I think that 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, 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 in 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?
Speaker 5: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 so I mean, if I talk to people at the UN, they've, you know, they've spent the last few years working very, very hard on other wealthy countries to get them to step up their commitments the Gulf states, china, others and I mean China does do a fair bit of stuff, but they tend to do it bilaterally, not through the UN system. So I think they're in for some very, very hard times. Whether it leads to the, you know, the end of the UN, I don't think so, but you know, you never know.
Speaker 1:Colm Lynch, journalist with DevEx, ending our discussion on the challenges ahead for the United Nations. We hope you enjoyed this edition of Inside Geneva and just before we go, here's some news about a new podcast series from Swiss.
Speaker 4:Info. Hi, I'm Angela Saini, a science journalist and author. I've written four books exploring humanity's fascination with science as a solution to social problems, and I'm the host of Lost Cells, a thrilling new investigative podcast that will make you question the promises behind private stem cell banking. This gripping podcast follows the stories of families from Spain, serbia, italy and many other countries as they embark on a global quest to find the one thing they need the most life itself. Will they succeed in their search for the stem cells that they pinned their hopes on? Tune in to Lost Cells, an original Swiss Info podcast. To find out, listen on Apple Podcasts, spotify or wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 1:That sounds pretty interesting. Do join Angela Saini when Lost Cells comes out. And, of course, do join us next time on 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 insidegeneva at swissinfoch 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.
