Geostrategic Media Political Commentary, Analysis, Security, Defense
Video game enthusiasts like me will know what a double tap is. But for any non-gamer/hunters out there, a double tap is a shooting technique where two shots are fired in rapid succession at the same target and can also describe a second fatal shot once the enemy is down (like a coupe de grâce). Trump has executed this move on an organization his country created and uplifted for almost 80 years, and might leave it on its deathbed.
Former President Donald Trump, after a first term in which he derided the UN and threatened to quit it, signed an executive order on Tuesday initiating a broad review of U.S. funding and participation in the United Nations, casting doubt on America’s leadership as the organization’s primary financial contributor.
“I’ve always believed the U.N. has tremendous potential,” Trump remarked before signing the order in the Oval Office. “Right now, it’s not living up to that potential.”
The order also formalized Trump’s previous decisions to withdraw the U.S. from the U.N. Human Rights Council and to halt funding for UNRWA, the agency providing humanitarian aid to Palestinians in Gaza. Both actions had been anticipated, as Trump had already distanced the U.S. from these organizations during his first term.
Additionally, the directive called for a reassessment of U.S. involvement in UNESCO, the agency responsible for protecting world heritage sites. The White House staff secretary, Will Scharf, cited concerns about “anti-American bias” and an “unfair disparity in funding levels among member states” as justification for the review.
In response, U.N. spokesperson Stéphane Dujarric emphasized the importance of U.S. support in advancing global security and stated that Secretary-General António Guterres “looks forward to continuing his productive relationship with President Trump and the U.S. government in today’s turbulent world.” What else could he have said…?
Additionally we had last week’s dramatic 90-day freeze on foreign assistance, directly affecting USAID operations; which fund 47% of the world’s aid. The halt led to the suspension of thousands of aid programs worldwide, furloughs and layoffs of USAID staff and contractors, and even the deactivation of USAID’s website and social media presence. Initially, the freeze stopped all USAID-funded work, though waivers were later granted for some life-saving medical and food aid. The full extent of the freeze remains unclear. The funding pause has had severe humanitarian consequences. HIV and Mpox prevention initiatives have been halted, women’s health providers have shut down, and essential water and sanitation programs have been suspended. Vaccination programs for children have been disrupted, and education initiatives have been put on hold. BRAC, an international NGO, reported that in just four countries, suspended aid programs due to the freeze would affect 3.5 million people.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio explained that the administration aims to conduct a comprehensive review of each program to assess whether it contributes to making “America safer, stronger, or more prosperous.” As a result, aid programs are facing increased scrutiny, uncertainty over which initiatives might be exempt, and a global slowdown in aid and development efforts.
Well, this was only the first shot. On the Wednesday, 5th of February, in one of the most surprising announcements in decades, and in a dramatic shift in Washington’s policy toward the region, President Trump fired the second shot at the UN, and unveiled his plan for the future of Gaza, one even more radical than expected. He declared that the United States would “take control” of the Strip, “own it,” and demolish it in order to rebuild it as the “Riviera of the Middle East,” where “people from around the world” would live after forcibly and “permanently” displacing its current inhabitants.
“The United States will take over the Gaza Strip, and we will work on it as well. We will own it and will be responsible for dismantling all the dangerous unexploded bombs and other weapons in the area […] If necessary, we will do it—we will take charge of that place, develop it, create thousands and thousands of jobs, and it will be something that all of the Middle East can be very proud of,” Trump stated in a press conference alongside Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who could not hide his satisfaction and described Trump as “the best friend Israel has ever had in the White House.”
Trump reiterated his proposal to relocate Gaza’s inhabitants to Egypt, Jordan, “and many other countries,” emphasizing that it would be a “permanent” move. He also noted that Gaza would become an “international” place where Palestinians could “also” live.
Let us gloss over the fact it is ethically unquestionable, let us gloss over the fact it would be a humanitarian Armageddon, and solidify the anti-Semitic feelings that surge across the world. It is just plain illegal:
The forced deportation of a civilian population is strictly prohibited by international humanitarian law. The Fourth Geneva Convention, in its Article 49, clearly states: “Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.”
Trump’s plan also violates the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination, which has been repeatedly recognized by the United Nations. The UN General Assembly Resolution 3236 (1974) reaffirms: “The inalienable right of the Palestinians to return to their homes and property from which they have been displaced and uprooted, and calls for their return.” This right is also enshrined in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), both of which recognize the right of all peoples to self-determination.
The suggestion additionally violates the prohibition of territorial annexation by force, which is enshrined in the United Nations Charter, Article 2(4): “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.” UN Security Council Resolution 242 (1967) has further reinforced this principle and numerous subsequent resolutions, which emphasize the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war.
The idea of permanently resettling Palestinians in other countries contradicts the right of return of Palestinian refugees, which is recognized in UN General Assembly Resolution 194 (1948). Paragraph 11of this resolution states: “refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible.” This right has been reaffirmed in numerous subsequent UN resolutions and is considered a fundamental principle in addressing the Palestinian refugee issue.
Finally, for the sake of brevity, Trump’s plan violates, among others:
- The Principle of Non-Discrimination: The proposal to expel Palestinians based on their ethnicity or nationality violates the principle of non-discrimination, which is a fundamental tenet of international human rights law.
- The Prohibition of Collective Punishment: The expulsion of an entire population would constitute collective punishment, which is prohibited under Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention.
- The Respect for Human Dignity: Such actions would violate the basic principle of respect for human dignity, which is enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and numerous other international human rights instruments.
- The Sovereignty of States: Any plan involving the forced relocation of Palestinians to other countries would violate the sovereignty of those states, contravening fundamental principles of international law.
If Trump, who has the power of a Security Council veto (so no action can be taken against the U.S. at a UN level), goes through with his plan, he will kill the idea of the UN, as we know it. He has greatly deprived the UN of the majority of its practicality (through the funding of humanitarian and development projects, which he has cut or reduced), as well as; with his plan realized; would have broken the fundamental laws which bind the world together. This does not mean other countries like Russia have not also contributed to the impoverishment of the organization, but the US has stood firmly beside the UN since 1945, even had it do its bidding sometimes. It is thanks to the US and its influence the UN grew to be the organization responsible for the wellbeing and prosperity of billions around the world.
Without the world’s most powerful country respecting it and its ability to fund projects severely depleted (with the three major countries in the world not really interested in it, as Russia is busy in Ukraine, and China has never shown a particular interest besides from blocking the entry of Taiwan), the UN would quickly become a pseudo League of Nations. Noble, but impotent to stop those who want to reshape the world to their liking. We all know how the world ended last time power hungry autocrats disregarded basic international law, so even though the UN is deeply flawed, it is the only antidote we have against those who believe themselves to be above international law. We might remember February 5th 2025 as the day the UN died and only time will tell if it has. I hope that it will not, but thanks to Trump, we need to entertain that possibility.
