February 4, 2025 • 43 mins
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
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:07):
This is Inside Geneva .
I'm your host, imogen Foulkes,and this is a production from
Swissinfo, the internationalpublic media company of
Switzerland.
Speaker 2 (00:19):
In today's program, the Israeli UN ambassador says
the United Nations Relief andWorks Agency for Palestine
refugees in the Near East mustcease all its operations and
evacuate all premises itoperates.
Speaker 3 (00:33):
UNRWA is what we call the backbone of the
humanitarian operation.
They are really the operationwhich all other humanitarian
actors depend on.
Speaker 4 (00:42):
As part of his blitz of executive orders issued
yesterday, President Trump alsodelivered on a campaign promise
to withdraw the United Statesfrom the World Health
Organization.
Speaker 3 (00:52):
What is this withdrawing from?
Speaker 2 (00:54):
the World Health Organization.
Sir Ooh, that's amazing.
The withdrawal from WHO flewunder the radar and it's
probably the most consequentialthing of all.
The United States formed theWHO in the aftermath of World
War II and we've been its mostinfluential member and biggest
(01:14):
funder for over 75 years.
Speaker 1 (01:17):
The Trump administration has issued a halt
to nearly all existing foreignaid.
Speaker 5 (01:22):
The 90-day suspension is a death sentence for many
small NGOs who just don't havethe finances to sort of weather
this kind of this period.
So yeah, shock and awe Late.
Today the US State Departmentsuspended all foreign assistance
around the world for at leastthree months.
Speaker 2 (01:40):
This is going to mean that all of the vital work of
the World Health Organization onhealth emergencies, putting out
fires around the world, polioeradication, aids, tb and
malaria all of this importantwork is going to be even more
underfunded.
Speaker 4 (01:58):
Donald Trump suspended American foreign aid
on day one of his presidency.
Speaker 3 (02:04):
We've had periods in the past where Republican US
presidents have made statementsto 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 (02:17):
There will be some testing years, I think, For
existing foreign assistanceawards, contracting officers and
grant officers shallimmediately issue stop work
orders.
This notion that's sort ofstarting to percolate through my
brain is this notion that thisis really the end of foreign aid
as we know it right, and thatSomalia, faced with a major
(02:39):
famine, the Americans stepped inand provided over a billion
dollars.
I don't really see thisadministration responding to a
coming crisis with a majoroutlay of cash in the way that
we have done historically.
Speaker 1 (02:57):
Hello and welcome again to Inside Geneva.
I'm Imogen Folks Now.
It's been a turbulent couple ofweeks globally, including here
in Geneva, where newlyinaugurated President Trump's
foreign policy plans are causingshock, dismay and huge worry.
In today's episode we take adeep dive into three areas where
(03:19):
US strategy is having asignificant effect on
humanitarian operations.
Strategy is having asignificant effect on
humanitarian operations.
The first is something we wereexpecting.
Israel's ban on the UN ReliefAgency for Palestinians, or
UNRWA, came into effect justdays ago.
Then later in the programme,we'll hear from renowned public
health professor, lawrenceGostin, about the US decision to
(03:42):
leave the World HealthOrganisation.
Lawrence Gostin about the USdecision to leave the World
Health Organization, and we'lltalk to US-based foreign policy
journalist, Colin Lynch aboutthe implications of Washington's
freeze on funding for foreignaid.
But let's start with UNRWA.
The US, under Joe Biden,withdrew its support from the
agency last year followingallegations some UNRWA staff
(04:05):
were involved in the October 7thattacks.
Unrwa immediately fired thestaff under suspicion nine out
of 13,000 in Gaza and the UNinvestigated, although many of
Israel's claims could not besubstantiated.
Israel's parliament voted toban UNRWA, despite the UN's
(04:26):
insistence.
The agency is irreplaceable.
That ban is now in force, butUNRWA insists it remains
committed to working in Gaza.
Jürgen Jensehaugen of the PeaceResearch Institute Oslo has
written a report looking at theeffect of banning UNRWA, and he
began by telling me that even asthe ban came into force, it
(04:49):
remained unclear how it wouldwork.
Speaker 3 (04:51):
Well, it's actually really unclear.
So there's no.
It's not without reason thatjournalists too are kind of
baffled by this.
The laws were passed and then,after they were passed, israel
really ordered their ownministries to figure out how to
implement these, and the exactmechanisms for how the laws will
be implemented are rather vague.
(05:12):
The first law says that UNRWAwill be illegal in Israel.
That means that East Jerusalem,as defined by Israel, is part
of Israel, now, of course, bythe international system.
Otherwise East Jerusalem is notpart of Israel.
But for the Israeli legalsystem, east Jerusalem is Israel
.
The other law is more vague.
(05:34):
It says that engagement betweenIsrael and UNRWA will be
illegal, meaning that UNRWA canstill exist, but Israeli
officials cannot engage withUNRWA.
And that's where we're gettingto complicated territory,
because Israel is the occupyingpower and everything the UN does
within the occupied territoriesreally is under the mercy of
(05:56):
the occupying power.
So there it's really a questionof how can UNRWA operate if
they cannot engage with theoccupying power.
Speaker 1 (06:04):
You would think, given the thousands of people
trying to return to northernGaza and the destruction we have
seen in Gaza, that any limit onthe humanitarian work which
UNRWA has been providing wouldbe quite disastrous.
Speaker 3 (06:23):
UNRWA has been providing would be quite
disastrous.
Yes, absolutely so.
Unrwa is what we call thebackbone of the humanitarian
operation, meaning that theydon't only bring in aid
themselves, but they are reallythe operation which all other
humanitarian actors depend on.
So, whether that'sdeconfliction, that is
coordination with the Israeliarmy for security purposes,
(06:45):
whether it's maintainingstorehouses, whether it's
securing distribution centers,unrwa has 5,000 staff members
working on aid and health carein the Gaza Strip, whilst other
comparable organizations have ahandful, a couple of hundred at
most.
So all the other agenciesreally depend on UNRWA.
So really, the paradox here isthat the ceasefire allows for
(07:09):
more aid to come in, which isreally good and necessary.
The operation for distributionis being picked apart at the
same time.
Speaker 1 (07:18):
Well, the other UN humanitarian agencies, as you
say, they do operate, but UNRWAis the kind of linchpin between
all of them.
The other UN agencies have saidthere is no Plan B, we cannot
step in.
Wouldn't it have been better tocome up with a Plan B?
Speaker 3 (07:34):
So the first point is the UN's official position is
that there cannot be a Plan Bbecause they cannot accept the
legality of the law.
The expulsion of the UN agencyis illegal and by stating that
they are working on a plan B isa de facto acceptance of illegal
law.
The other part of it is reallythat the laws were passed with a
(07:57):
90-day timeline and that simplyisn't enough.
If we think about thislogistically, if we put aside
the principal stance, what weheard when we interviewed people
with a lot of humanitarianexperience is that transforming
the type of operation that UNRWAhas in that kind of environment
, to do it properly, takes twoto three years.
And here we have 90 days.
(08:18):
Even if we put aside principles, the UN position was it's just
impossible to adapt.
Unrwa is the best option wehave.
The flip side of the coin isgiven that UNRWA will be banned,
wouldn't it be better to atleast scramble as much as
possible within those 90 days tomake sure that at least
something was there?
And there there's really acatch-22, the tension between
(08:41):
the principle stance and thehumanitarian imperative, and the
UN apparatus really loses outeither way.
If they go all in on theprincipal stance, they're not
adequately prepared on thehumanitarian stance.
If they go all in on thehumanitarian stance they're
undermining themselves in aprincipled sense, which then
opens for other actors in otherconflicts and other contexts to
(09:03):
also think about expelling theUN.
So it kind of opens a reallynegative spiral really either
way, other actors in otherconflicts and other contexts to
also think about expelling theUN.
So it kind of opens a reallynegative spiral really either
way, and so it's a reallydifficult position for the UN to
be in.
Speaker 1 (09:14):
You said to really replace what UNRWA does would
take two to three years.
I mean that's partly to do withthe fact that they pretty much
run the education system, theschools I mean.
That I imagine would be veryhard to replace.
Speaker 3 (09:28):
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'stheoretically possible to see a
situation where other actorscould take over in relative
short time.
But in Gaza it's not withoutreason that people describe it
as scholasticide, meaning thesystematic destruction of the
(09:52):
education system, and UNRWAreally is the only operator that
has enough capacity to buildthat up relatively quickly.
What the prospects for buildingup education in Gaza is, it's
very difficult to see.
And if UNRWA is not able tooperate, there's no other UN
agency that does actualoperational educational system.
(10:12):
So UNICEF can deal with stufflike give advice and help set up
curriculum and stuff, but theydon't do schools.
Unrwa is unique in the sensethat it actually runs schools.
So you know asking the sensethat it actually runs schools.
Speaker 1 (10:29):
So you know, asking somebody else to run the schools
.
Well, who's that going to be?
Now, that's a reallyinteresting question, because
Israel has long complained thatUNRWA's teaching is biased and
too pro-Palestinian or evenencouraging terrorism.
Speaker 3 (10:52):
Now studies into that have not really borne out
Israel's criticisms.
Now, studies into that have notreally borne out Israel's
criticisms.
But if UNRWA wasn't there, doesthat not leave the door open to
possibly the kind of if we takethe postulate that Israel is
making, that UNRWA teaches theseterrible school books?
So, as you said, you know therehad been a lot of research into
this and, yes, individual caseshave been found that are
(11:17):
problematic, but overall theschool textbooks come out pretty
good.
The thing UNRWA does is thatthey take the school textbooks
of the host country, and in thiscase that would be the
Palestinian Authority.
When problematic issues arise,they're still forced to use
those textbooks.
But what they do is they doneutrality teaching, they do
critical education processes,they do all these mechanisms
(11:40):
that kind of neutralize all theproblematic parts of the
curriculum.
They add human rights teaching,they add additional stuff
that's not in the textbooks.
Now if UNRWA collapses and thePalestinian 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
(12:02):
a much worse version of whatthey claim to be fighting.
Speaker 1 (12:05):
But a lot of people in Israel would point to the
possible involvement of, I think, nine UNRWA workers, possible
connection to the October 7thattack, and say we cannot work
with this organization anymoreand would say the kind of things
that you're saying are reallyjust not addressing the problem.
Speaker 3 (12:28):
So those allegations are extremely serious and I
think it's very clear, if youlook at this kind of objectively
, that once UNRWA were told thatsome of their staff might have
been involved, they took stepsimmediately.
They fired all those accused.
Even before they had seen theevidence, they started
investigating it and they askedIsrael for concrete evidence.
(12:49):
And there's been quite a lackof Israeli evidence.
Unrwa has received lists ofnames, but when they've asked
for follow-up proof so that theycan check up the matter, the
evidence has very often beenlacking.
That's not to say that theremight very well have been
individuals involved in theattack, but one has to remember
that in Gaza UNRWA employs13,000 people.
(13:11):
They're not a state.
They don't have an intelligenceoperating system.
It's very difficult for them tocontrol everybody.
But UNRWA's official line hereis that they have zero tolerance
, but they acknowledge that it'snot zero risk, and so, knowing
the context in Gaza, they areaware that they might
occasionally be infiltrated bybad actors and they take it very
(13:34):
seriously when they are.
And here is another kind ofparadox Whoever is going to take
over an operation employingthousands of local Palestinians
in Gaza, it's not completelyunlikely that individuals
representing a military factionmight sneak in.
That is unfortunate andeverything must be done to
(13:54):
ensure that that doesn't happen,but that's really the reality
on the ground in such a extremewar context as is going on in
Gaza.
Extreme war context as is goingon in Gaza.
So I think the best approachwould be okay.
Let's work together to havestronger vetting processes,
let's share intelligence so wecan ensure that this type of
(14:15):
infiltration doesn't happen.
Banning the entire operationreally undermines the stability
that one says one wants toachieve in Gaza, because
education, functioninghumanitarian processes,
development on the ground,working, healthcare that's the
kind of thing that fightsextremism.
The type of war we've seen inGaza over the past 15 months,
(14:37):
that does not fight extremism.
Speaker 1 (14:39):
Just taking this out to a slightly wider level, wider
implications.
Your report calls this thefirst ever eviction of a UN
agency by a UN member state,that member state being Israel.
Do you think that other UNmember states should be more
concerned about this, about theprecedent this could be setting
(15:05):
in how the UN can function allover the world?
Speaker 3 (15:08):
Yes, I think so.
I think we're in ratherdangerous territory when it
comes to certain standards thathave been part of the system
that has been shaped after theSecond World War.
I'm not saying that Israel is auniquely bad actor, but I'm
saying that the kind of policiesthat they've engaged vis-a-vis
(15:28):
the UN sets a dangerousprecedent that other actors with
in similar contexts or othercontexts in which they feel that
the UN is infringing too muchupon controlling what a state
does or whatever, can be temptedto follow suit.
We see, for instance, how auniquely high number of UN staff
(15:52):
have been killed in Gaza.
I mean, we're talking over 270,I think is the most recent
number UN staff have been killedin this war.
And if Israel gets away withthat, if that becomes kind of an
accepted casualty of war, thenwho's from stopping other states
from also killing UN staff onthe?
Speaker 1 (16:12):
we have seen, for example, now the new
administration in the UnitedStates withdraw from the World
Health Organization.
And interestingly, we've seenElise Stefanik, the new US
(16:35):
ambassador to the United Nations, basically say we like UNICEF
and we like the World FoodProgramme because they protect
America's interests.
I mean, from the Genevastandpoint that's kind of not
really how the UN works,protecting individual member
states' interests.
Speaker 3 (16:54):
I think you're absolutely right.
I think there is increasingdisrespect for what the UN
stands for, and I think Israelhas really been not just vocal
but active, taken very clearsteps in this regard.
I mean everything from theshredding of the UN document to
the attacks on the UNIFILsoldiers stationed in South
(17:16):
Lebanon, to this, you know,political attack and also
military attack on UNRWA.
So I fear that we're enteringreally very tense moment in
which the UN is core to thisstrain.
Speaker 1 (17:32):
Can it survive?
Do you think can the UN survivethis kind of strain?
Speaker 3 (17:36):
I really hope so.
We've had periods in the pastwhere typically Republican US
presidents have made statementsto the effect that they will you
know they'll stop funding theUN.
They want to pull out of the UN.
You know the whole processsurrounding the war in Iraq in
2003 was also built around thisdisrespect for the Security
Council and the UN pulledthrough.
(17:58):
So we're into difficult times.
I have absolutely no doubtabout that.
I hope the UN manages to pullthrough, but it will be some
testing years, I think.
Speaker 1 (18:15):
Testing years for the United Nations ahead, says
Jürgen Jensehaugen of the PeaceResearch Institute Oslo, not
least for the World HealthOrganization, which had feared a
US withdrawal.
Let's not forget Donald Trumptried to do that in his first
term but hoped until the lastpossible moment that he might
(18:36):
not take such a drastic step.
Lawrence Gostin is Professor ofGlobal Health at Georgetown
University in Washington DC andhas long been one of the people
liaising between the UnitedStates and the WHO.
I asked him for his reaction toTrump's decision.
Speaker 2 (18:56):
Yes, I'm angry, I'm disheartened.
I don't think there's enoughunderstanding of how momentous
this is.
On day one of Trump's secondterm, he issued about 100
executive orders on all kinds ofissues, like immigration, on
(19:16):
climate change truly horriblethings.
But the withdrawal from WHOflew under the radar and it's
probably the most consequentialthing of all.
The United States formed theWHO in the aftermath of World
War II and we've been its mostinfluential member and biggest
(19:39):
funder for over 75 years.
The idea that we would leavethis organization that has kept
the world safer and healthier ismind-boggling to me.
This is a horrible thing forworld health, but I think it may
be an even more grievous woundto American national interests
(20:00):
because it makes us isolated,alone and far more vulnerable
and really fragile.
Speaker 1 (20:08):
The consequences and implications of the United
States leaving seem to me, fromthe Geneva standpoint, very
worrying, as you say, not justfor the world but for the United
States itself.
Speaker 2 (20:24):
I believe so.
Funding is a big part of it,but it's not the only part.
Speaker 4 (20:30):
The.
Speaker 2 (20:30):
United States funds roughly 20% of WHO's budget, and
WHO is already chronicallyunderfunded.
It has the same budget as amajor US hospital and yet it has
a global mandate.
It has a budget that's onequarter of the CDC's, which is
(20:54):
only for one country, and sothis is going to mean that all
of the vital work of the WorldHealth Organization on health
emergencies, putting out firesaround the world, polio
eradication, aids, tb andmalaria all of this important
work is going to be even moreunderfunded.
(21:14):
So I think this is a veryserious for WHO.
I think WHO will survive.
They will be nimble.
The US will want to come backwhen we return to our sanity,
but I do believe this is aharmful moment, not just in
Geneva but really worldwide.
Speaker 1 (21:36):
But for the United States itself as well.
Everybody describes DonaldTrump as a very transactional
kind of person.
Does he not understand thetransaction of sharing
information about emergingdiseases and how that can be
beneficial to the United Stateshas with WHO?
Speaker 2 (21:57):
I don't think he would be taking the decision
that he is taking.
There are many ways that WHObenefits the United States.
(22:20):
One of them you've mentioned isscientific exchange, which is
something the US has beenparticularly strident about over
the many, many years that I'vebeen working with.
The US has been particularlystrident about over the many,
many years that I've beenworking with the US and with WHO
, and for good reason.
It's really important to shareinformation about surveillance,
(22:42):
epidemiology, outbreaks,mutations.
It's important to sharepathogen samples, genomic
sequencing data.
The United States needs theseto be able to understand where
the threats lie.
Otherwise, we're flying blind.
But our pharmaceutical industryand our agencies, like the NIH
(23:03):
and CDC and FDA, need them orinnovation, so that we can
develop the vaccines and thetreatments that keep Americans
safe and everyone safe.
The Americans are used to beingat the front of the line for
life-saving medical technologies.
They might find themselves atthe back of the line when they
(23:24):
don't have access to theessential data that WHO
routinely shares with the world.
Speaker 1 (23:33):
Do you feel for your colleagues at the Centre for
Disease Control who apparentlyhave been told this week to
cease all contact with the WorldHealth Organization with
immediate effect?
Speaker 2 (23:45):
I do.
It is a very, very sad day forCDC and CDC staff.
I will just say a couple ofthings First.
President Trump often tries tocharacterize you know, make a
caricature of WHO or CDC asbeing these remote bureaucrats
that really don't understandthings.
(24:06):
But I know my friends at WHOand CDC to be doctors, nurses,
scientists, who come into workevery day and do their level
best to make the world a littlehealthier and a little safer.
They do it without a lot ofglory, without a lot of money,
and to vilify them, I think isreally a horrible thing and the
(24:29):
president can be vindictive.
My very close friend, TonyFauci, had his security detail
taken away by President Trump,which seems to be pure
vindictiveness.
But I think, beyond the staffat CDC, it's important to
understand that the work thatthey do is important work.
(24:50):
You know when they're told notto communicate it means that
Americans don't find out aboutfoodborne outbreaks, they don't
investigate outbreaks of avianinfluenza in our cattle, they
don't cooperate with state,local and tribal governments on
vaccinations for children andadults, governments on
vaccinations for children andadults, and they don't go to
(25:12):
Africa, asia, latin America andtry to put out fires before they
come to the United States.
This is truly damaging, and oneof the things that I think
about as I look at all of thethings, all of these orders that
have taken place from the WhiteHouse is I think I can't think
of one way that this advances USnational interests or security.
(25:37):
If I did, I would say so, but Iliterally can't see any benefit
to this for the United States.
Speaker 1 (25:46):
I'm wondering, though you have been, as I said, quite
vocal in your concern andopposition to this decision to
leave the WHO.
You mentioned your colleague,tony Fauci Are you nervous at
all about the consequences foryou personally of the stance
you're taking?
Speaker 2 (26:06):
Yes, a little bit.
Yes, a little bit.
(26:28):
You know our old days trying towork on the fight against AIDS,
but the caption said there'sFauci and Gostin, you know,
laughing and smiling after allthe deaths they caused during
COVID.
That's dangerous and it's wrong.
(26:50):
That's dangerous and it's wrong.
But the sad thing is is that itwas retweeted by the incoming
director of the NIH.
Now, this is really just notthe way we should be working
together.
I'm America.
I believe in American healthand well-being and our
(27:13):
productivity and our economy.
I want the president to succeedto stop calling people names,
caricaturing them as beingsomething that they're not, or
(27:41):
organizations that are somethingthat they're not, and try to
lift things up, build things up.
I really think there's a way todo that I think they're you
know so better while alsoadvancing American national
interests.
Speaker 1 (27:55):
Just to clarify there , the NIH, the new director,
head of the NIH, that's the USNational Institute for Health,
new appointment there by the newadministration, who retweeted
that fairly unpleasant sluragainst you and Anthony Fauci.
I have a very last question foryou and this is a very perhaps
(28:17):
Geneva or maybe rest of theworld question, because we're
all asking ourselves is theUnited 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,
(28:41):
talking about only beinginterested in UN bodies that
serve American interests, whichis, as I'm sure you're aware,
not quite the purpose of theUnited Nations.
Do you think there's a dangerof a real, the world's only
superpower leaving the world'sonly multilateral organization?
Speaker 2 (29:02):
Yeah, no, I don't think Trump would leave the
United Nations, the US has aveto in the Security Council.
So I don't think he'll do that,but I do think he will leave a
number of UN specializedagencies like WHO, and he's not
(29:27):
a person that believes stronglyin multilateralism and
international cooperationinternational norms and treaty
obligations on health, climateor other aspects.
But I think the internationalcommunity will survive.
They will survive this.
(29:49):
I'm absolutely confident ofthat.
In some ways it may bring peopletogether that they might
negotiate a pandemic agreementin Geneva, for example, when
they otherwise might not have.
It will also mean that regionslike the African region may have
(30:11):
more self-reliance and have acleaner, louder voice in
international negotiations.
So I see that there could bebenefits.
But overall it's horrible thatthe United States is not
engaging, but we'll survive it.
The United States is notengaging, but we'll survive it.
(30:34):
And then, after four years, Ido believe there'll be a new
president and a very differentview and America will once again
get back to our position as aninternational leader and someone
with high values.
That's my hope and my dream,but it's also my expectation.
Speaker 1 (31:01):
Nice to end that interview on at least a faint
note of optimism from LawrenceGostin.
I'm sure humanitarian agenciesin Geneva share his hopes.
But hot on the heels of the WHOwithdrawal announcement came a
new blow.
The US announced a freeze onforeign aid, including
everything from deminingoperations to HIV prevention
(31:24):
programs.
Colin Lynch, un and foreignpolicy journalist, who now
writes for the specialist aidand development media platform
DevEx, which is, by the way, agreat resource for anyone who's
interested in the topics wediscuss here on Inside Geneva, I
asked Colm if the UN in NewYork shared the dismay of Geneva
(31:48):
.
Speaker 5 (31:48):
I'm shocked as well.
I mean, I'll give you oneexample the UN Population Fund,
which, more than any otheragency, was preparing for cuts.
They get cut every time aRepublican administration comes
into office.
Trump did it the first time.
They knew it was going tohappen this time.
But the difference is there wasalso kind of a stop order on
(32:08):
work.
In the past the Population Fundthey would be allowed to
continue the projects that theyhad already secured financing
for and they just wouldn't getanything new.
So they would prepare, you know, to find new donors to try and
fill the gap.
But this time it's completelycaught them off guard and I
think, you know, an agency whichwas expecting hard times is
(32:31):
kind of stunned by the way it'sunfolded.
So this was a sweeping decision.
Not clear that they thoughtthrough the implications.
Maybe they did.
Maybe this chaos is exactlywhat they want.
Maybe they want the wholesector to shrink and it will
shrink as a result of a 90-daysuspension.
(32:51):
I mean, a 90-day suspension isa death sentence for many small
NGOs who just don't have thefinances to sort of weather this
kind of this period.
So yeah, shock and awe.
Speaker 1 (33:05):
What do you think Trump's strategy is?
I mean, people here in Genevaare asking I mean, is it even a
strategy?
Speaker 5 (33:16):
So that's an excellent question and it is a
question that's being discussedinternally by UN lawyers.
So the UN Charter, article 100,prohibits members of the
International Civil Servant fromtaking orders, from responding
to orders from a member state.
So there are, you know, peoplewithin the system who believe
that the stop order, demand,stop work order is a violation
(33:40):
of the UN Charter.
So you know, the Americans arepowerful enough to do whatever
they want and you know theentire sort of industrial
humanitarian development system.
It's hard to see how itfunctions without US funding.
So they have leverage to breakthe rules, to stretch the
(34:04):
charter in a way that reallypushes the limits of
international law.
So whether it's proper or not, Imean, I remember an anecdote
many years ago during the Bushadministration, I did an
interview with a top US official, chris Burnham, who was the
head of management and he usedto wear on his lapel a US flag.
(34:27):
And I did did an interviewwhich got him into a lot of
trouble, where he said sort ofplainly you know my constituency
, I answer ultimately to UStaxpayers, and of course it
caused him a lot of grief,particularly with the group of
77 and all that.
But you know there is atradition of American
nationalism, particularly in theRepublican Party, where you
(34:49):
don't want to be seen as havingdrunk 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 ina situation where I think an
administration is willing to gomuch further than wearing an
American flag on their lapel.
Speaker 1 (35:10):
You think they could finish off the UN, this
administration?
Speaker 5 (35:13):
I don't know, you know, like I, just over the
years, the UN, like I see it assort of like a pendulum, you
know it kind of swings intorelevance and swings out of it.
You think about periods inwhich the UN, particularly
Security Council, has hadoverwhelming power, the ability
to force countries to rewritetheir anti-terrorism rules after
(35:34):
9-11.
And then you would see dips,periods where it was quite
paralyzed.
Certainly during the pandemicthe US and Chinese divisions
were making it possible to reachagreement on basically anything
, on anything reasonablyreasonable about how to respond
to the pandemic.
So there is a lot of that.
(35:55):
But the US values the SecurityCouncil and a lot of Republicans
sort of dismiss the UN in theinitial part of their
administrations and then comearound to kind of recognizing
that they're quite useful.
And I think you know Trumpdoesn't really hate the UN, you
know, if you remember, I meanDon't you think he even knows
what it is?
(36:16):
Oh, yeah, yeah, because he once,you know, had, I remember I had
a conversation with Ban Ki-moonand he recalled, like getting a
call from Trump because hewanted to do the renovation of
the UN building and he wastrying to sell Ban Ki-moon on
the idea of like changingcontractors at the last minute.
But also, you know, when hecame in, when he came in, he
(36:37):
loved to come to New York, heloved the pageantry.
You know, guterres, theSecretary General, would you
know, would arrange, and alsohis then Ambassador, nikki Haley
, would arrange high levelmeetings where he-ambassador
Nikki Haley would arrangehigh-level meetings where he
could be the big dog.
I remember him going to theleadership luncheons.
He loves that stuff and I don'tthink he has any sort of
(36:59):
inherent hostility towards theUN.
I think he just, you know, Idon't think he's particularly
ideological.
So I think if it's useful forhim, fine.
If it's not useful for him, youknow he wants.
And that's not just Trump,that's every administration.
I mean.
One point that's interesting isthat Trump invited both the
Secretary General multiple timesand the UN Security Council to
(37:22):
the White House.
Joe Biden never did that, notonce.
So there are some interestingthings, 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 wholething, it's not great for the
Americans, right?
And there are some people inthe administration who, I think,
(37:43):
understand that.
Speaker 1 (37:44):
Well, I think that will be heartening for the
humanitarian wing of the UNwhich, as you know, is in Geneva
.
Very last question, really,then.
You said earlier that the90-day basically cease and
desist order is a real deathsentence for implementing NGOs
(38:06):
on the ground.
You know how can they cope?
Speaker 5 (38:09):
I don't think the humanitarian community in Geneva
should take heart at all.
I mean, I think that thisnotion that's sort of starting
to percolate through my brain isthis notion that this is really
the end of foreign aid as weknow it right, and that Somalia,
a couple of years ago, facedwith a major famine or the
(38:30):
threat of a famine, theAmericans stepped in and
provided over a billion dollars.
Ethiopia, the tsunami inSoutheast Asia, peacekeeping
operations I mean I don't reallysee this administration
responding to a coming crisiswith a major outlay of cash in
the way that we have donehistorically.
So what does that mean?
(38:53):
I mean you know interestingtests will be Haiti.
I mean that's an issue whereit's fairly local for the US.
It has to do with migration,with refugees.
It may be an issue where theywill 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?
(39:13):
If there's a famine again inSomalia?
Are you going to see thisadministration committing a
billion dollars, making thatkind of contribution, leading
the effort on Ebola in WestAfrica?
I mean there are certain thingsthat the Americans had a lot of
skill with and you know, for allthe criticism of, you know, the
US engagement, the fact that atthe UN they're actually in more
(39:36):
than a billion dollars worth ofdebt On the humanitarian side,
they have really they have morethan pulled their weight.
And so I mean, if I talk topeople at the UN, they've, you
know, they've spent the last fewyears working very, very hard
on other wealthy countries toget them to step up their
commitments the Gulf states,china, others and I mean China
(40:00):
does do a fair bit of stuff, butthey tend to do it bilaterally,
not through the UN system.
So I think they're in for somevery, very hard times.
Whether it leads to the, youknow, the end of the UN, I don't
think so, but you know, younever know.
Speaker 1 (40:18):
Colm Lynch, journalist with DevEx, ending
our discussion on the challengesahead for the United Nations.
We hope you enjoyed thisedition of Inside Geneva and
just before we go, here's somenews about a new podcast series
from Swiss.
Speaker 4 (40:33):
Info.
Hi, I'm Angela Saini, a sciencejournalist and author.
I've written four booksexploring humanity's fascination
with science as a solution tosocial problems, and I'm the
host of Lost Cells, a thrillingnew investigative podcast that
will make you question thepromises behind private stem
(40:55):
cell banking.
This gripping podcast followsthe stories of families from
Spain, serbia, italy and manyother countries as they embark
on a global quest to find theone thing they need the most
life itself.
Will they succeed in theirsearch for the stem cells that
(41:16):
they pinned their hopes on?
Tune in to Lost Cells, anoriginal Swiss Info podcast.
To find out, listen on ApplePodcasts, spotify or wherever
you get your podcasts.
Speaker 1 (41:29):
That sounds pretty interesting.
Do join Angela Saini when LostCells comes out.
And, of course, do join us nexttime on Inside Geneva.
We'll be back with a newepisode on Tuesday, February
18th.
I'm Imogen Folks, Thanks forlistening.
A reminder you've beenlistening to Inside Geneva, a
(41:56):
Swiss Info production.
You can email us oninsidegeneva at swissinfoch and
subscribe to us and review uswherever you get your podcasts.
Check out our previous episodeshow the International Red Cross
unites prisoners of war withtheir families, or why survivors
(42:17):
of human rights violations turnto the UN in Geneva for justice
.
I'm Imogen Folks.
Thanks again for listening.
This is Inside Geneva .
I'm your host, imogen Foulkes,and this is a production from
Swissinfo, the internationalpublic media company of
Switzerland.
Speaker 2 (00:19):
In today's program, the Israeli UN ambassador says
the United Nations Relief andWorks Agency for Palestine
refugees in the Near East mustcease all its operations and
evacuate all premises itoperates.
Speaker 3 (00:33):
UNRWA is what we call the backbone of the
humanitarian operation.
They are really the operationwhich all other humanitarian
actors depend on.
Speaker 4 (00:42):
As part of his blitz of executive orders issued
yesterday, President Trump alsodelivered on a campaign promise
to withdraw the United Statesfrom the World Health
Organization.
Speaker 3 (00:52):
What is this withdrawing from?
Speaker 2 (00:54):
the World Health Organization.
Sir Ooh, that's amazing.
The withdrawal from WHO flewunder the radar and it's
probably the most consequentialthing of all.
The United States formed theWHO in the aftermath of World
War II and we've been its mostinfluential member and biggest
(01:14):
funder for over 75 years.
Speaker 1 (01:17):
The Trump administration has issued a halt
to nearly all existing foreignaid.
Speaker 5 (01:22):
The 90-day suspension is a death sentence for many
small NGOs who just don't havethe finances to sort of weather
this kind of this period.
So yeah, shock and awe Late.
Today the US State Departmentsuspended all foreign assistance
around the world for at leastthree months.
Speaker 2 (01:40):
This is going to mean that all of the vital work of
the World Health Organization onhealth emergencies, putting out
fires around the world, polioeradication, aids, tb and
malaria all of this importantwork is going to be even more
underfunded.
Speaker 4 (01:58):
Donald Trump suspended American foreign aid
on day one of his presidency.
Speaker 3 (02:04):
We've had periods in the past where Republican US
presidents have made statementsto 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 (02:17):
There will be some testing years, I think, For
existing foreign assistanceawards, contracting officers and
grant officers shallimmediately issue stop work
orders.
This notion that's sort ofstarting to percolate through my
brain is this notion that thisis really the end of foreign aid
as we know it right, and thatSomalia, faced with a major
(02:39):
famine, the Americans stepped inand provided over a billion
dollars.
I don't really see thisadministration responding to a
coming crisis with a majoroutlay of cash in the way that
we have done historically.
Speaker 1 (02:57):
Hello and welcome again to Inside Geneva.
I'm Imogen Folks Now.
It's been a turbulent couple ofweeks globally, including here
in Geneva, where newlyinaugurated President Trump's
foreign policy plans are causingshock, dismay and huge worry.
In today's episode we take adeep dive into three areas where
(03:19):
US strategy is having asignificant effect on
humanitarian operations.
Strategy is having asignificant effect on
humanitarian operations.
The first is something we wereexpecting.
Israel's ban on the UN ReliefAgency for Palestinians, or
UNRWA, came into effect justdays ago.
Then later in the programme,we'll hear from renowned public
health professor, lawrenceGostin, about the US decision to
(03:42):
leave the World HealthOrganisation.
Lawrence Gostin about the USdecision to leave the World
Health Organization, and we'lltalk to US-based foreign policy
journalist, Colin Lynch aboutthe implications of Washington's
freeze on funding for foreignaid.
But let's start with UNRWA.
The US, under Joe Biden,withdrew its support from the
agency last year followingallegations some UNRWA staff
(04:05):
were involved in the October 7thattacks.
Unrwa immediately fired thestaff under suspicion nine out
of 13,000 in Gaza and the UNinvestigated, although many of
Israel's claims could not besubstantiated.
Israel's parliament voted toban UNRWA, despite the UN's
(04:26):
insistence.
The agency is irreplaceable.
That ban is now in force, butUNRWA insists it remains
committed to working in Gaza.
Jürgen Jensehaugen of the PeaceResearch Institute Oslo has
written a report looking at theeffect of banning UNRWA, and he
began by telling me that even asthe ban came into force, it
(04:49):
remained unclear how it wouldwork.
Speaker 3 (04:51):
Well, it's actually really unclear.
So there's no.
It's not without reason thatjournalists too are kind of
baffled by this.
The laws were passed and then,after they were passed, israel
really ordered their ownministries to figure out how to
implement these, and the exactmechanisms for how the laws will
be implemented are rather vague.
(05:12):
The first law says that UNRWAwill be illegal in Israel.
That means that East Jerusalem,as defined by Israel, is part
of Israel, now, of course, bythe international system.
Otherwise East Jerusalem is notpart of Israel.
But for the Israeli legalsystem, east Jerusalem is Israel
.
The other law is more vague.
(05:34):
It says that engagement betweenIsrael and UNRWA will be
illegal, meaning that UNRWA canstill exist, but Israeli
officials cannot engage withUNRWA.
And that's where we're gettingto complicated territory,
because Israel is the occupyingpower and everything the UN does
within the occupied territoriesreally is under the mercy of
(05:56):
the occupying power.
So there it's really a questionof how can UNRWA operate if
they cannot engage with theoccupying power.
Speaker 1 (06:04):
You would think, given the thousands of people
trying to return to northernGaza and the destruction we have
seen in Gaza, that any limit onthe humanitarian work which
UNRWA has been providing wouldbe quite disastrous.
Speaker 3 (06:23):
UNRWA has been providing would be quite
disastrous.
Yes, absolutely so.
Unrwa is what we call thebackbone of the humanitarian
operation, meaning that theydon't only bring in aid
themselves, but they are reallythe operation which all other
humanitarian actors depend on.
So, whether that'sdeconfliction, that is
coordination with the Israeliarmy for security purposes,
(06:45):
whether it's maintainingstorehouses, whether it's
securing distribution centers,unrwa has 5,000 staff members
working on aid and health carein the Gaza Strip, whilst other
comparable organizations have ahandful, a couple of hundred at
most.
So all the other agenciesreally depend on UNRWA.
So really, the paradox here isthat the ceasefire allows for
(07:09):
more aid to come in, which isreally good and necessary.
The operation for distributionis being picked apart at the
same time.
Speaker 1 (07:18):
Well, the other UN humanitarian agencies, as you
say, they do operate, but UNRWAis the kind of linchpin between
all of them.
The other UN agencies have saidthere is no Plan B, we cannot
step in.
Wouldn't it have been better tocome up with a Plan B?
Speaker 3 (07:34):
So the first point is the UN's official position is
that there cannot be a Plan Bbecause they cannot accept the
legality of the law.
The expulsion of the UN agencyis illegal and by stating that
they are working on a plan B isa de facto acceptance of illegal
law.
The other part of it is reallythat the laws were passed with a
(07:57):
90-day timeline and that simplyisn't enough.
If we think about thislogistically, if we put aside
the principal stance, what weheard when we interviewed people
with a lot of humanitarianexperience is that transforming
the type of operation that UNRWAhas in that kind of environment
, to do it properly, takes twoto three years.
And here we have 90 days.
(08:18):
Even if we put aside principles, the UN position was it's just
impossible to adapt.
Unrwa is the best option wehave.
The flip side of the coin isgiven that UNRWA will be banned,
wouldn't it be better to atleast scramble as much as
possible within those 90 days tomake sure that at least
something was there?
And there there's really acatch-22, the tension between
(08:41):
the principle stance and thehumanitarian imperative, and the
UN apparatus really loses outeither way.
If they go all in on theprincipal stance, they're not
adequately prepared on thehumanitarian stance.
If they go all in on thehumanitarian stance they're
undermining themselves in aprincipled sense, which then
opens for other actors in otherconflicts and other contexts to
(09:03):
also think about expelling theUN.
So it kind of opens a reallynegative spiral really either
way, other actors in otherconflicts and other contexts to
also think about expelling theUN.
So it kind of opens a reallynegative spiral really either
way, and so it's a reallydifficult position for the UN to
be in.
Speaker 1 (09:14):
You said to really replace what UNRWA does would
take two to three years.
I mean that's partly to do withthe fact that they pretty much
run the education system, theschools I mean.
That I imagine would be veryhard to replace.
Speaker 3 (09:28):
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'stheoretically possible to see a
situation where other actorscould take over in relative
short time.
But in Gaza it's not withoutreason that people describe it
as scholasticide, meaning thesystematic destruction of the
(09:52):
education system, and UNRWAreally is the only operator that
has enough capacity to buildthat up relatively quickly.
What the prospects for buildingup education in Gaza is, it's
very difficult to see.
And if UNRWA is not able tooperate, there's no other UN
agency that does actualoperational educational system.
(10:12):
So UNICEF can deal with stufflike give advice and help set up
curriculum and stuff, but theydon't do schools.
Unrwa is unique in the sensethat it actually runs schools.
So you know asking the sensethat it actually runs schools.
Speaker 1 (10:29):
So you know, asking somebody else to run the schools
.
Well, who's that going to be?
Now, that's a reallyinteresting question, because
Israel has long complained thatUNRWA's teaching is biased and
too pro-Palestinian or evenencouraging terrorism.
Speaker 3 (10:52):
Now studies into that have not really borne out
Israel's criticisms.
Now, studies into that have notreally borne out Israel's
criticisms.
But if UNRWA wasn't there, doesthat not leave the door open to
possibly the kind of if we takethe postulate that Israel is
making, that UNRWA teaches theseterrible school books?
So, as you said, you know therehad been a lot of research into
this and, yes, individual caseshave been found that are
(11:17):
problematic, but overall theschool textbooks come out pretty
good.
The thing UNRWA does is thatthey take the school textbooks
of the host country, and in thiscase that would be the
Palestinian Authority.
When problematic issues arise,they're still forced to use
those textbooks.
But what they do is they doneutrality teaching, they do
critical education processes,they do all these mechanisms
(11:40):
that kind of neutralize all theproblematic parts of the
curriculum.
They add human rights teaching,they add additional stuff
that's not in the textbooks.
Now if UNRWA collapses and thePalestinian 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
(12:02):
a much worse version of whatthey claim to be fighting.
Speaker 1 (12:05):
But a lot of people in Israel would point to the
possible involvement of, I think, nine UNRWA workers, possible
connection to the October 7thattack, and say we cannot work
with this organization anymoreand would say the kind of things
that you're saying are reallyjust not addressing the problem.
Speaker 3 (12:28):
So those allegations are extremely serious and I
think it's very clear, if youlook at this kind of objectively
, that once UNRWA were told thatsome of their staff might have
been involved, they took stepsimmediately.
They fired all those accused.
Even before they had seen theevidence, they started
investigating it and they askedIsrael for concrete evidence.
(12:49):
And there's been quite a lackof Israeli evidence.
Unrwa has received lists ofnames, but when they've asked
for follow-up proof so that theycan check up the matter, the
evidence has very often beenlacking.
That's not to say that theremight very well have been
individuals involved in theattack, but one has to remember
that in Gaza UNRWA employs13,000 people.
(13:11):
They're not a state.
They don't have an intelligenceoperating system.
It's very difficult for them tocontrol everybody.
But UNRWA's official line hereis that they have zero tolerance
, but they acknowledge that it'snot zero risk, and so, knowing
the context in Gaza, they areaware that they might
occasionally be infiltrated bybad actors and they take it very
(13:34):
seriously when they are.
And here is another kind ofparadox Whoever is going to take
over an operation employingthousands of local Palestinians
in Gaza, it's not completelyunlikely that individuals
representing a military factionmight sneak in.
That is unfortunate andeverything must be done to
(13:54):
ensure that that doesn't happen,but that's really the reality
on the ground in such a extremewar context as is going on in
Gaza.
Extreme war context as is goingon in Gaza.
So I think the best approachwould be okay.
Let's work together to havestronger vetting processes,
let's share intelligence so wecan ensure that this type of
(14:15):
infiltration doesn't happen.
Banning the entire operationreally undermines the stability
that one says one wants toachieve in Gaza, because
education, functioninghumanitarian processes,
development on the ground,working, healthcare that's the
kind of thing that fightsextremism.
The type of war we've seen inGaza over the past 15 months,
(14:37):
that does not fight extremism.
Speaker 1 (14:39):
Just taking this out to a slightly wider level, wider
implications.
Your report calls this thefirst ever eviction of a UN
agency by a UN member state,that member state being Israel.
Do you think that other UNmember states should be more
concerned about this, about theprecedent this could be setting
(15:05):
in how the UN can function allover the world?
Speaker 3 (15:08):
Yes, I think so.
I think we're in ratherdangerous territory when it
comes to certain standards thathave been part of the system
that has been shaped after theSecond World War.
I'm not saying that Israel is auniquely bad actor, but I'm
saying that the kind of policiesthat they've engaged vis-a-vis
(15:28):
the UN sets a dangerousprecedent that other actors with
in similar contexts or othercontexts in which they feel that
the UN is infringing too muchupon controlling what a state
does or whatever, can be temptedto follow suit.
We see, for instance, how auniquely high number of UN staff
(15:52):
have been killed in Gaza.
I mean, we're talking over 270,I think is the most recent
number UN staff have been killedin this war.
And if Israel gets away withthat, if that becomes kind of an
accepted casualty of war, thenwho's from stopping other states
from also killing UN staff onthe?
Speaker 1 (16:12):
we have seen, for example, now the new
administration in the UnitedStates withdraw from the World
Health Organization.
And interestingly, we've seenElise Stefanik, the new US
(16:35):
ambassador to the United Nations, basically say we like UNICEF
and we like the World FoodProgramme because they protect
America's interests.
I mean, from the Genevastandpoint that's kind of not
really how the UN works,protecting individual member
states' interests.
Speaker 3 (16:54):
I think you're absolutely right.
I think there is increasingdisrespect for what the UN
stands for, and I think Israelhas really been not just vocal
but active, taken very clearsteps in this regard.
I mean everything from theshredding of the UN document to
the attacks on the UNIFILsoldiers stationed in South
(17:16):
Lebanon, to this, you know,political attack and also
military attack on UNRWA.
So I fear that we're enteringreally very tense moment in
which the UN is core to thisstrain.
Speaker 1 (17:32):
Can it survive?
Do you think can the UN survivethis kind of strain?
Speaker 3 (17:36):
I really hope so.
We've had periods in the pastwhere typically Republican US
presidents have made statementsto the effect that they will you
know they'll stop funding theUN.
They want to pull out of the UN.
You know the whole processsurrounding the war in Iraq in
2003 was also built around thisdisrespect for the Security
Council and the UN pulledthrough.
(17:58):
So we're into difficult times.
I have absolutely no doubtabout that.
I hope the UN manages to pullthrough, but it will be some
testing years, I think.
Speaker 1 (18:15):
Testing years for the United Nations ahead, says
Jürgen Jensehaugen of the PeaceResearch Institute Oslo, not
least for the World HealthOrganization, which had feared a
US withdrawal.
Let's not forget Donald Trumptried to do that in his first
term but hoped until the lastpossible moment that he might
(18:36):
not take such a drastic step.
Lawrence Gostin is Professor ofGlobal Health at Georgetown
University in Washington DC andhas long been one of the people
liaising between the UnitedStates and the WHO.
I asked him for his reaction toTrump's decision.
Speaker 2 (18:56):
Yes, I'm angry, I'm disheartened.
I don't think there's enoughunderstanding of how momentous
this is.
On day one of Trump's secondterm, he issued about 100
executive orders on all kinds ofissues, like immigration, on
(19:16):
climate change truly horriblethings.
But the withdrawal from WHOflew under the radar and it's
probably the most consequentialthing of all.
The United States formed theWHO in the aftermath of World
War II and we've been its mostinfluential member and biggest
(19:39):
funder for over 75 years.
The idea that we would leavethis organization that has kept
the world safer and healthier ismind-boggling to me.
This is a horrible thing forworld health, but I think it may
be an even more grievous woundto American national interests
(20:00):
because it makes us isolated,alone and far more vulnerable
and really fragile.
Speaker 1 (20:08):
The consequences and implications of the United
States leaving seem to me, fromthe Geneva standpoint, very
worrying, as you say, not justfor the world but for the United
States itself.
Speaker 2 (20:24):
I believe so.
Funding is a big part of it,but it's not the only part.
Speaker 4 (20:30):
The.
Speaker 2 (20:30):
United States funds roughly 20% of WHO's budget, and
WHO is already chronicallyunderfunded.
It has the same budget as amajor US hospital and yet it has
a global mandate.
It has a budget that's onequarter of the CDC's, which is
(20:54):
only for one country, and sothis is going to mean that all
of the vital work of the WorldHealth Organization on health
emergencies, putting out firesaround the world, polio
eradication, aids, tb andmalaria all of this important
work is going to be even moreunderfunded.
(21:14):
So I think this is a veryserious for WHO.
I think WHO will survive.
They will be nimble.
The US will want to come backwhen we return to our sanity,
but I do believe this is aharmful moment, not just in
Geneva but really worldwide.
Speaker 1 (21:36):
But for the United States itself as well.
Everybody describes DonaldTrump as a very transactional
kind of person.
Does he not understand thetransaction of sharing
information about emergingdiseases and how that can be
beneficial to the United Stateshas with WHO?
Speaker 2 (21:57):
I don't think he would be taking the decision
that he is taking.
There are many ways that WHObenefits the United States.
(22:20):
One of them you've mentioned isscientific exchange, which is
something the US has beenparticularly strident about over
the many, many years that I'vebeen working with.
The US has been particularlystrident about over the many,
many years that I've beenworking with the US and with WHO
, and for good reason.
It's really important to shareinformation about surveillance,
(22:42):
epidemiology, outbreaks,mutations.
It's important to sharepathogen samples, genomic
sequencing data.
The United States needs theseto be able to understand where
the threats lie.
Otherwise, we're flying blind.
But our pharmaceutical industryand our agencies, like the NIH
(23:03):
and CDC and FDA, need them orinnovation, so that we can
develop the vaccines and thetreatments that keep Americans
safe and everyone safe.
The Americans are used to beingat the front of the line for
life-saving medical technologies.
They might find themselves atthe back of the line when they
(23:24):
don't have access to theessential data that WHO
routinely shares with the world.
Speaker 1 (23:33):
Do you feel for your colleagues at the Centre for
Disease Control who apparentlyhave been told this week to
cease all contact with the WorldHealth Organization with
immediate effect?
Speaker 2 (23:45):
I do.
It is a very, very sad day forCDC and CDC staff.
I will just say a couple ofthings First.
President Trump often tries tocharacterize you know, make a
caricature of WHO or CDC asbeing these remote bureaucrats
that really don't understandthings.
(24:06):
But I know my friends at WHOand CDC to be doctors, nurses,
scientists, who come into workevery day and do their level
best to make the world a littlehealthier and a little safer.
They do it without a lot ofglory, without a lot of money,
and to vilify them, I think isreally a horrible thing and the
(24:29):
president can be vindictive.
My very close friend, TonyFauci, had his security detail
taken away by President Trump,which seems to be pure
vindictiveness.
But I think, beyond the staffat CDC, it's important to
understand that the work thatthey do is important work.
(24:50):
You know when they're told notto communicate it means that
Americans don't find out aboutfoodborne outbreaks, they don't
investigate outbreaks of avianinfluenza in our cattle, they
don't cooperate with state,local and tribal governments on
vaccinations for children andadults, governments on
vaccinations for children andadults, and they don't go to
(25:12):
Africa, asia, latin America andtry to put out fires before they
come to the United States.
This is truly damaging, and oneof the things that I think
about as I look at all of thethings, all of these orders that
have taken place from the WhiteHouse is I think I can't think
of one way that this advances USnational interests or security.
(25:37):
If I did, I would say so, but Iliterally can't see any benefit
to this for the United States.
Speaker 1 (25:46):
I'm wondering, though you have been, as I said, quite
vocal in your concern andopposition to this decision to
leave the WHO.
You mentioned your colleague,tony Fauci Are you nervous at
all about the consequences foryou personally of the stance
you're taking?
Speaker 2 (26:06):
Yes, a little bit.
Yes, a little bit.
(26:28):
You know our old days trying towork on the fight against AIDS,
but the caption said there'sFauci and Gostin, you know,
laughing and smiling after allthe deaths they caused during
COVID.
That's dangerous and it's wrong.
(26:50):
That's dangerous and it's wrong.
But the sad thing is is that itwas retweeted by the incoming
director of the NIH.
Now, this is really just notthe way we should be working
together.
I'm America.
I believe in American healthand well-being and our
(27:13):
productivity and our economy.
I want the president to succeedto stop calling people names,
caricaturing them as beingsomething that they're not, or
(27:41):
organizations that are somethingthat they're not, and try to
lift things up, build things up.
I really think there's a way todo that I think they're you
know so better while alsoadvancing American national
interests.
Speaker 1 (27:55):
Just to clarify there , the NIH, the new director,
head of the NIH, that's the USNational Institute for Health,
new appointment there by the newadministration, who retweeted
that fairly unpleasant sluragainst you and Anthony Fauci.
I have a very last question foryou and this is a very perhaps
(28:17):
Geneva or maybe rest of theworld question, because we're
all asking ourselves is theUnited 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,
(28:41):
talking about only beinginterested in UN bodies that
serve American interests, whichis, as I'm sure you're aware,
not quite the purpose of theUnited Nations.
Do you think there's a dangerof a real, the world's only
superpower leaving the world'sonly multilateral organization?
Speaker 2 (29:02):
Yeah, no, I don't think Trump would leave the
United Nations, the US has aveto in the Security Council.
So I don't think he'll do that,but I do think he will leave a
number of UN specializedagencies like WHO, and he's not
(29:27):
a person that believes stronglyin multilateralism and
international cooperationinternational norms and treaty
obligations on health, climateor other aspects.
But I think the internationalcommunity will survive.
They will survive this.
(29:49):
I'm absolutely confident ofthat.
In some ways it may bring peopletogether that they might
negotiate a pandemic agreementin Geneva, for example, when
they otherwise might not have.
It will also mean that regionslike the African region may have
(30:11):
more self-reliance and have acleaner, louder voice in
international negotiations.
So I see that there could bebenefits.
But overall it's horrible thatthe United States is not
engaging, but we'll survive it.
The United States is notengaging, but we'll survive it.
(30:34):
And then, after four years, Ido believe there'll be a new
president and a very differentview and America will once again
get back to our position as aninternational leader and someone
with high values.
That's my hope and my dream,but it's also my expectation.
Speaker 1 (31:01):
Nice to end that interview on at least a faint
note of optimism from LawrenceGostin.
I'm sure humanitarian agenciesin Geneva share his hopes.
But hot on the heels of the WHOwithdrawal announcement came a
new blow.
The US announced a freeze onforeign aid, including
everything from deminingoperations to HIV prevention
(31:24):
programs.
Colin Lynch, un and foreignpolicy journalist, who now
writes for the specialist aidand development media platform
DevEx, which is, by the way, agreat resource for anyone who's
interested in the topics wediscuss here on Inside Geneva, I
asked Colm if the UN in NewYork shared the dismay of Geneva
(31:48):
.
Speaker 5 (31:48):
I'm shocked as well.
I mean, I'll give you oneexample the UN Population Fund,
which, more than any otheragency, was preparing for cuts.
They get cut every time aRepublican administration comes
into office.
Trump did it the first time.
They knew it was going tohappen this time.
But the difference is there wasalso kind of a stop order on
(32:08):
work.
In the past the Population Fundthey would be allowed to
continue the projects that theyhad already secured financing
for and they just wouldn't getanything new.
So they would prepare, you know, to find new donors to try and
fill the gap.
But this time it's completelycaught them off guard and I
think, you know, an agency whichwas expecting hard times is
(32:31):
kind of stunned by the way it'sunfolded.
So this was a sweeping decision.
Not clear that they thoughtthrough the implications.
Maybe they did.
Maybe this chaos is exactlywhat they want.
Maybe they want the wholesector to shrink and it will
shrink as a result of a 90-daysuspension.
(32:51):
I mean, a 90-day suspension isa death sentence for many small
NGOs who just don't have thefinances to sort of weather this
kind of this period.
So yeah, shock and awe.
Speaker 1 (33:05):
What do you think Trump's strategy is?
I mean, people here in Genevaare asking I mean, is it even a
strategy?
Speaker 5 (33:16):
So that's an excellent question and it is a
question that's being discussedinternally by UN lawyers.
So the UN Charter, article 100,prohibits members of the
International Civil Servant fromtaking orders, from responding
to orders from a member state.
So there are, you know, peoplewithin the system who believe
that the stop order, demand,stop work order is a violation
(33:40):
of the UN Charter.
So you know, the Americans arepowerful enough to do whatever
they want and you know theentire sort of industrial
humanitarian development system.
It's hard to see how itfunctions without US funding.
So they have leverage to breakthe rules, to stretch the
(34:04):
charter in a way that reallypushes the limits of
international law.
So whether it's proper or not, Imean, I remember an anecdote
many years ago during the Bushadministration, I did an
interview with a top US official, chris Burnham, who was the
head of management and he usedto wear on his lapel a US flag.
(34:27):
And I did did an interviewwhich got him into a lot of
trouble, where he said sort ofplainly you know my constituency
, I answer ultimately to UStaxpayers, and of course it
caused him a lot of grief,particularly with the group of
77 and all that.
But you know there is atradition of American
nationalism, particularly in theRepublican Party, where you
(34:49):
don't want to be seen as havingdrunk 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 ina situation where I think an
administration is willing to gomuch further than wearing an
American flag on their lapel.
Speaker 1 (35:10):
You think they could finish off the UN, this
administration?
Speaker 5 (35:13):
I don't know, you know, like I, just over the
years, the UN, like I see it assort of like a pendulum, you
know it kind of swings intorelevance and swings out of it.
You think about periods inwhich the UN, particularly
Security Council, has hadoverwhelming power, the ability
to force countries to rewritetheir anti-terrorism rules after
(35:34):
9-11.
And then you would see dips,periods where it was quite
paralyzed.
Certainly during the pandemicthe US and Chinese divisions
were making it possible to reachagreement on basically anything
, on anything reasonablyreasonable about how to respond
to the pandemic.
So there is a lot of that.
(35:55):
But the US values the SecurityCouncil and a lot of Republicans
sort of dismiss the UN in theinitial part of their
administrations and then comearound to kind of recognizing
that they're quite useful.
And I think you know Trumpdoesn't really hate the UN, you
know, if you remember, I meanDon't you think he even knows
what it is?
(36:16):
Oh, yeah, yeah, because he once,you know, had, I remember I had
a conversation with Ban Ki-moonand he recalled, like getting a
call from Trump because hewanted to do the renovation of
the UN building and he wastrying to sell Ban Ki-moon on
the idea of like changingcontractors at the last minute.
But also, you know, when hecame in, when he came in, he
(36:37):
loved to come to New York, heloved the pageantry.
You know, guterres, theSecretary General, would you
know, would arrange, and alsohis then Ambassador, nikki Haley
, would arrange high levelmeetings where he-ambassador
Nikki Haley would arrangehigh-level meetings where he
could be the big dog.
I remember him going to theleadership luncheons.
He loves that stuff and I don'tthink he has any sort of
(36:59):
inherent hostility towards theUN.
I think he just, you know, Idon't think he's particularly
ideological.
So I think if it's useful forhim, fine.
If it's not useful for him, youknow he wants.
And that's not just Trump,that's every administration.
I mean.
One point that's interesting isthat Trump invited both the
Secretary General multiple timesand the UN Security Council to
(37:22):
the White House.
Joe Biden never did that, notonce.
So there are some interestingthings, 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 wholething, it's not great for the
Americans, right?
And there are some people inthe administration who, I think,
(37:43):
understand that.
Speaker 1 (37:44):
Well, I think that will be heartening for the
humanitarian wing of the UNwhich, as you know, is in Geneva
.
Very last question, really,then.
You said earlier that the90-day basically cease and
desist order is a real deathsentence for implementing NGOs
(38:06):
on the ground.
You know how can they cope?
Speaker 5 (38:09):
I don't think the humanitarian community in Geneva
should take heart at all.
I mean, I think that thisnotion that's sort of starting
to percolate through my brain isthis notion that this is really
the end of foreign aid as weknow it right, and that Somalia,
a couple of years ago, facedwith a major famine or the
(38:30):
threat of a famine, theAmericans stepped in and
provided over a billion dollars.
Ethiopia, the tsunami inSoutheast Asia, peacekeeping
operations I mean I don't reallysee this administration
responding to a coming crisiswith a major outlay of cash in
the way that we have donehistorically.
So what does that mean?
(38:53):
I mean you know interestingtests will be Haiti.
I mean that's an issue whereit's fairly local for the US.
It has to do with migration,with refugees.
It may be an issue where theywill 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?
(39:13):
If there's a famine again inSomalia?
Are you going to see thisadministration committing a
billion dollars, making thatkind of contribution, leading
the effort on Ebola in WestAfrica?
I mean there are certain thingsthat the Americans had a lot of
skill with and you know, for allthe criticism of, you know, the
US engagement, the fact that atthe UN they're actually in more
(39:36):
than a billion dollars worth ofdebt On the humanitarian side,
they have really they have morethan pulled their weight.
And so I mean, if I talk topeople at the UN, they've, you
know, they've spent the last fewyears working very, very hard
on other wealthy countries toget them to step up their
commitments the Gulf states,china, others and I mean China
(40:00):
does do a fair bit of stuff, butthey tend to do it bilaterally,
not through the UN system.
So I think they're in for somevery, very hard times.
Whether it leads to the, youknow, the end of the UN, I don't
think so, but you know, younever know.
Speaker 1 (40:18):
Colm Lynch, journalist with DevEx, ending
our discussion on the challengesahead for the United Nations.
We hope you enjoyed thisedition of Inside Geneva and
just before we go, here's somenews about a new podcast series
from Swiss.
Speaker 4 (40:33):
Info.
Hi, I'm Angela Saini, a sciencejournalist and author.
I've written four booksexploring humanity's fascination
with science as a solution tosocial problems, and I'm the
host of Lost Cells, a thrillingnew investigative podcast that
will make you question thepromises behind private stem
(40:55):
cell banking.
This gripping podcast followsthe stories of families from
Spain, serbia, italy and manyother countries as they embark
on a global quest to find theone thing they need the most
life itself.
Will they succeed in theirsearch for the stem cells that
(41:16):
they pinned their hopes on?
Tune in to Lost Cells, anoriginal Swiss Info podcast.
To find out, listen on ApplePodcasts, spotify or wherever
you get your podcasts.
Speaker 1 (41:29):
That sounds pretty interesting.
Do join Angela Saini when LostCells comes out.
And, of course, do join us nexttime on Inside Geneva.
We'll be back with a newepisode on Tuesday, February
18th.
I'm Imogen Folks, Thanks forlistening.
A reminder you've beenlistening to Inside Geneva, a
(41:56):
Swiss Info production.
You can email us oninsidegeneva at swissinfoch and
subscribe to us and review uswherever you get your podcasts.
Check out our previous episodeshow the International Red Cross
unites prisoners of war withtheir families, or why survivors
(42:17):
of human rights violations turnto the UN in Geneva for justice
.
I'm Imogen Folks.
Thanks again for listening.
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy And Charlamagne Tha God!
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.