US Support Of UN Organizations Must Remain Unabated

During Donald Trump’s presidency, the United States withdrew from several international organizations. These include the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA), the World Health Organization (WHO), the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), and the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC). Trump’s actions were partly motivated by a broader strategy, presumably prioritizing “America First” policies. Trump often cited perceived prejudices or inefficiencies within these organizations. If Trump were to be reelected, he should be persuaded not to take similar actions as that would diminish rather than serve America’s leadership role and its influence on these organizations and prevent it from leading by example and walking the high moral ground. Although Trump, if reelected, will more than likely withdraw from many of these organizations, when and how he will act would depend on several factors.

Strategic Interests: Trump’s foreign policy has often been transactional. He was guided by what he thought best served America’s interests. If staying in these organizations is inconsistent with his perceived strategic interests, however misguided that might be, he will undoubtedly consider withdrawing again from these and other UN organizations.

Political Climate: The domestic and international political climate could influence his decisions. For example, if Trump enjoyed solid domestic support for disengaging from international organizations or if geopolitical tensions required a reevaluation of alliances, he might pursue similar actions.

Policy Continuity: Trump’s previous withdrawals were propelled by his critiques of many of these organizations, such as suspected mismanagement, prejudice against specific states, or inadequacies in dealing with global issues. Similar actions could be expected if his views on these “concerns” remain unchanged.

That said, given what Trump has been saying and advocating as he campaigns for reelection, he remains committed to his misguided notion of “America First” when, in fact, America’s best interest is served by staying in rather than withdrawing from these international organizations. Nevertheless, should he still take similar action, it could create significant financial gaps at these organizations, given the US’s role as the largest contributor to the UN. In 2022, the US contributed over $18 billion, accounting for about one-third of the UN’s overall funding. This substantial financial support is crucial for various UN operations, including peacekeeping, humanitarian aid, and health initiatives.

In the event of a US withdrawal, the UN should be prepared to take several measures to mitigate the adverse impact on these organizations.

Bolstering Alliances
The UN Secretary-General should seek to build stronger coalitions with other countries to step up to fill the financial void and assist in mitigating the impact of a US withdrawal, including nurturing relationships with emerging economies and regional powers. These powers include:

• China: As the second-largest contributor to the UN, China has already increased its financial commitments in recent years. In 2022, China contributed approximately 16 percent of the UN peacekeeping budget and 15 percent to the UN’s regular budget, making it a significant player.
• Japan, Germany, and the United Kingdom: These countries are among the top contributors to the UN budget, with Japan contributing about 8 percent, Germany contributing around 6 percent, and the United Kingdom contributing around 4 percent. While these nations might struggle to fill the gap left by the US entirely, they could increase their contributions to mitigate the adverse impact.
• The EU: Given its commitment to multilateralism and global cooperation, the EU could collectively increase its contributions to the UN, which would offer the block an opportunity to assert its leadership on the world stage.
• Emerging Powers like India and Brazil, which are growing economically, might also be encouraged to increase their contributions. This could allow these nations to gain more influence in international affairs.

While these countries and groups might increase their contributions, it is important to note that the financial gap left by the US would be challenging to fill completely. The UN will have to prioritize its programs and seek efficiencies to cope with reduced funding. Additionally, the loss of US support could lead to strategic shifts within the UN, affecting its operations and influence.

Broadening of Funding Resources
Organizations such as UNRWA should diversify their funding sources to reduce their dependence on any single country, especially the US, which is the largest contributor. This could involve increasing contributions from other member UN states, private donors, and charitable organizations specifically concerned about the plight of the Palestinians. Such countries may include Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and other oil-rich Arab states.

Involving US policymakers
The UN should engage privately with many US policymakers to address its concerns and demonstrate the benefits of membership in these organizations, which could avert future withdrawals by the new Trump administration. This could entail stressing the importance and the strategic advantages of multilateral collaboration in addressing international challenges.

Reform Initiatives
Addressing criticisms that led to previous withdrawals, such as perceived biases or inefficiencies, could help prevent future disengagements. Moreover, transparent reforms and accountability measures might reassure skeptical member states of the organizations’ importance and effectiveness.

US financial support of many UN organizations must remain unabated. Those who can exert any influence on Trump should point out to him, should he be reelected, how critical US support is for the functioning of these organizations, as well as for the US’s self-interest, which is consistent with Trump’s notion of “America First.” Given, however, what we know about Trump, the likelihood is that he will not change his ways and may well pursue the same shortsighted policies.

Thus, by preparing and adopting the above strategic measures, the UN and its agencies will be in a much stronger position to survive potential shifts in the US treatment of these organizations and its foreign policy in general under Trump and proceed with their important missions efficiently.

This article was originally published in IPS News.