US WITHDRAWAL INTERNATIONAL FORUMS – INTERNATIONAL REALTIONS

US Withdrawal International Forums – INTERNATIONAL REALTIONS

NEWS: The United States has recently announced its withdrawal from several key international organizations, including the UNHRC, the WHO, and other international forums.

 

WHAT’S IN THE NEWS?

United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC):

  • US cited the UNHRC’s ‘chronic bias against Israel’ and its failure to address genuine human rights concerns.
    • The United States accused the UNHRC of disproportionately targeting Israel with condemnatory resolutions while failing to address serious human rights abuses in countries like China, North Korea, and Venezuela.
    • The U.S. viewed this as an unfair and politically motivated stance that undermined the council’s credibility.
  • It was part of a broader pattern of the Trump administration stepping back from international agreements and organizations under its ‘America First’ policy.
    • The Trump administration pursued a foreign policy that prioritized American sovereignty over multilateral commitments.
    • This approach led to withdrawals from international agreements and organizations perceived as compromising U.S. interests or requiring excessive financial contributions.
  • It accused the UNHRC of ‘obsessively demonizing the one democracy in the Middle East’ and propagating antisemitism.
    • U.S. officials claimed that Israel, as a democratic nation, was unfairly singled out for criticism.
    • The U.S. argued that some of the council's actions and rhetoric contributed to antisemitic sentiments.
  • The US prohibits any future funding for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), which provides aid to millions of Palestinians.
    • The U.S. cut its financial contributions to UNRWA, which had been one of its largest donors.
    • This move was based on claims that UNRWA perpetuated the Palestinian refugee crisis and had ties to extremist groups.
  • It is important to note that the UNHRC has passed over 100 condemnatory resolutions against Israel, which amounts to more than 20% of all resolutions passed by the council.
    • The UNHRC has historically devoted significant attention to Israel, passing more resolutions against it than any other country.
    • The U.S. viewed this as evidence of systemic bias rather than impartial human rights oversight.

 

World Health Organization (WHO):

  • Reasons behind withdrawal are WHO’s handling of the COVID-19 pandemic and its perceived bias towards China.
    • The U.S. criticized WHO’s response to the COVID-19 outbreak, alleging that it failed to hold China accountable for delays and lack of transparency in reporting the virus.
    • This led to accusations that WHO was overly influenced by China’s government.
  • The US, being the largest financial contributor to the WHO, argued that the organization needed to be reformed to better serve its member states.
    • The U.S. provided substantial funding to WHO and demanded structural reforms to improve its transparency and effectiveness.
    • Washington insisted on changes to prevent undue influence from powerful member states, such as China.
  • It could cost WHO $130 million in annual funds and hinder global public health response.
    • The U.S. withdrawal removed a critical source of funding, leading to budget shortfalls for WHO’s health programs.
    • This impacted global efforts to combat diseases like malaria, tuberculosis, and COVID-19.

 

Other International Forums

  • The US has reviewed its involvement in other international organizations, such as UNESCO and the Paris Climate Accord, citing ‘wild disparities’ in financial contributions among member countries.

·         The U.S. argued that it was paying a disproportionate share of the budget for these organizations compared to other member nations.

·         It demanded that funding be more evenly distributed among all participants.

  • Earlier, US left UNESCO in 2017, citing an alleged anti-Israel bias within the organization.

·         UNESCO had passed resolutions critical of Israeli policies in Jerusalem and the West Bank, leading to U.S. claims of bias.

·         This prompted the U.S. to withdraw in protest.

  • It echoed a similar withdrawal in 1984 under President Ronald Reagan, which was reversed in 2003.

·         The Reagan administration had also left UNESCO, citing mismanagement and political bias.

·         The U.S. later rejoined in 2003 under the George W. Bush administration, only to leave again in 2017.

  • The US withdrew from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) in 2017, citing the need to protect American jobs and industries.

·         The Trump administration viewed TPP as a trade deal that would disadvantage American workers by outsourcing jobs.

·         The decision aligned with the administration’s broader protectionist trade policies.

  • The remaining countries proceeded with a revised version called the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP).

·         After the U.S. exit, the other 11 nations renegotiated and continued the agreement without the U.S.

·         The revised CPTPP retained most of the original trade provisions while excluding controversial aspects demanded by the U.S.

 

Implications of U.S. Withdrawal from International Forums

Weakening of Global Multilateralism:

  • The repeated exits from key international organizations have raised concerns about the effectiveness of multilateralism.

·         The U.S., as a major global power, plays a key role in shaping international policies.

·         Its absence from multilateral bodies creates difficulties in addressing global challenges collectively.

  • U.S. disengagement often leads to leadership vacuums that other nations, particularly China, have sought to fill.

·         As the U.S. steps back, China has increased its influence in organizations like WHO, UNHRC, and WTO.

·         This shift has led to concerns about Beijing shaping global governance in ways that align with its political interests.

 

Geopolitical Power Shifts:

  • China and Russia have leveraged U.S. withdrawals to strengthen their influence in global governance.

·         Both nations have capitalized on reduced U.S. involvement to advance their own agendas.

·         This includes expanding their economic, diplomatic, and military influence in various global forums.

  • For instance, China has expanded its role within WHO, UNHRC, and trade agreements following US exits.

·         China has increased financial contributions and policy involvement in organizations previously dominated by the U.S.

·         This has allowed Beijing to exert more influence on international standards and regulations.

 

Damage to Global Trust and Alliances:

  • Frequent policy reversals, such as the U.S. leaving and then rejoining international agreements, create uncertainty among allies.

·         The inconsistency in U.S. foreign policy, depending on the administration in power, has made allies cautious.

·         This uncertainty affects long-term diplomatic and economic relationships.

  • It undermines trust in American commitments.

·         Other nations may hesitate to enter agreements with the U.S., fearing that future administrations might withdraw again.

 

Impact on Global Trade and Climate Policies:

  • Withdrawal from agreements like the TPP and the Paris Climate Accord has had economic and environmental consequences.

·         The U.S. lost opportunities for trade integration and climate cooperation.

·         Other nations continued developing trade partnerships and climate policies without U.S. participation.

  • The U.S. lost trade opportunities while other nations advanced regional agreements without it.

·         American businesses missed out on access to growing markets under TPP and similar trade deals.

 

Impact on UNRWA:

  • UNRWA provides health, education, and aid services to millions of Palestinians in Gaza, the West Bank, Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan.

·         The agency plays a crucial role in supporting Palestinian refugees.

·         U.S. funding cuts created financial instability for these programs.

  • The US had been the largest donor to UNRWA, contributing between $300 million and $400 million annually.

·         The withdrawal of U.S. funding severely impacted the agency’s ability to operate.

 

Reforms Needed in International Forums Amid US Withdrawal

  • Strengthening Multilateralism: Reforming financial structures can ensure more equitable funding among member nations.
  • Expanding Representation in Global Decision-Making: Calls for broader UNSC representation reflect demands for fairer global governance.
  • Revitalizing Climate Agreements: Strengthening compliance and penalties for withdrawal would improve stability in climate accords.

 

Conclusion:

  • U.S. withdrawals highlight the need for reforms to improve international organizations’ transparency, representation, and efficiency.
  • Ensuring these changes will help sustain global cooperation and address global challenges effectively.

 

Source: https://ddnews.gov.in/en/after-us-israel-withdraws-participation-from-un-human-rights-council/