20 June 2018
By Audrey Young
Former Prime Minister Helen Clark (click here) has thought "the unthinkable" and wondered aloud whether the United States could withdraw from the United Nations.
A former contender for the role of Secretary-General, Clark said the withdrawal of the US from the Human Rights Council was "a very, very significant step".
It had given up a mechanism for having its voice heard, she told Newstalk ZB tonight.
On issues such as the occupied Palestinian territories, she said "the US should be expressing its view on the issue from within the council, not throwing rocks from the outside".'...
Any resolution by the UN Security Council or General Assembly that supports a Palestinian state and/or refuses an invasion by the USA with Israel into the Middle East will be vetoed by the permanent members. Trump and Kushner are looking for a way to invade the middle east region without international approval or disapproval.
...The Trump administration (click here) may end U.S. participation in the United Nations Human Rights Council (“UNHRC”), according to two sources in regular contact with former and current officials. While no immediate withdrawal is expected, this news is likely to deepen the concerns of global activists that the United States may decrease its role advancing global human rights under President Trump. Furthermore, U.S. withdrawal from UNHCR would be a severe blow to the institution as American funding accounts for nearly half its overall budget.
There could be several underlying reasons behind the potential withdrawal, such as concerns that the council unfairly targets Israel, questions about member states, and doubts about its overall usefulness. However, it can also be understood as a part of the Trump administration’s broader scheme of foreign policy initiatives. Potentially withdrawal from the UNHRC may only be the first of many exits from international institutions to come. Trump and his key advisers promote “America First” foreign policy, which sees international organizations as at best sometimes-convenient instruments to serve U.S. foreign policy interests; at worst, as unnecessary shackles.
The Trump administration’s anti-globalist stance, is reflected in the draft order “Auditing and Reducing U.S. Funding of International Organizations,” which sets to cut voluntary support United States for international bodies by at least 40%. The White House is not alone in this anti-globalist outlook. A bill, entitled the American Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2017, introduced by Alabama Representative Mike Rogers earlier this year, calls on the United States to “terminate” its membership in the United Nations (“UN”). Arizona Representative Andy Biggs, who cosponsored the bill, stated that he believes that “our sovereignty as a country is harmed by our membership in this body.”
So far very few Republican lawmakers support a full United States withdrawal from the UN. Nikki Haley, Trump’s pick to replace Samantha Power as the American ambassador to the UN, while acknowledging that international organizations are often at odds with American national interests, stated that she doesn’t believe that there should be “a slash and burn” of the U.S. funding for the organization. But with both the White House and the Congress recently gravitating towards reexamining the United States’ disproportionate financial contribution to international organizations, America departing from the UN is no longer such a far-fetched notion....
...The declaration enumerated three conditions under which a nation could withdraw: (1) when the UN was revealed to be unable to fulfill its role of maintaining peace, (2) when a member was unable to accept a charter amendment that had come into force, (3) or when a member feels constrained to withdraw because of exceptional circumstances. Proving that the UN has failed to fulfill its role or that there is an unacceptable amendment coming into force would be extremely difficult. Even the more general and open-ended “exceptional circumstances” clause cannot be interpreted as allowing withdrawal for any reason....
Any resolution by the UN Security Council or General Assembly that supports a Palestinian state and/or refuses an invasion by the USA with Israel into the Middle East will be vetoed by the permanent members. Trump and Kushner are looking for a way to invade the middle east region without international approval or disapproval.
...The Trump administration (click here) may end U.S. participation in the United Nations Human Rights Council (“UNHRC”), according to two sources in regular contact with former and current officials. While no immediate withdrawal is expected, this news is likely to deepen the concerns of global activists that the United States may decrease its role advancing global human rights under President Trump. Furthermore, U.S. withdrawal from UNHCR would be a severe blow to the institution as American funding accounts for nearly half its overall budget.
There could be several underlying reasons behind the potential withdrawal, such as concerns that the council unfairly targets Israel, questions about member states, and doubts about its overall usefulness. However, it can also be understood as a part of the Trump administration’s broader scheme of foreign policy initiatives. Potentially withdrawal from the UNHRC may only be the first of many exits from international institutions to come. Trump and his key advisers promote “America First” foreign policy, which sees international organizations as at best sometimes-convenient instruments to serve U.S. foreign policy interests; at worst, as unnecessary shackles.
The Trump administration’s anti-globalist stance, is reflected in the draft order “Auditing and Reducing U.S. Funding of International Organizations,” which sets to cut voluntary support United States for international bodies by at least 40%. The White House is not alone in this anti-globalist outlook. A bill, entitled the American Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2017, introduced by Alabama Representative Mike Rogers earlier this year, calls on the United States to “terminate” its membership in the United Nations (“UN”). Arizona Representative Andy Biggs, who cosponsored the bill, stated that he believes that “our sovereignty as a country is harmed by our membership in this body.”
So far very few Republican lawmakers support a full United States withdrawal from the UN. Nikki Haley, Trump’s pick to replace Samantha Power as the American ambassador to the UN, while acknowledging that international organizations are often at odds with American national interests, stated that she doesn’t believe that there should be “a slash and burn” of the U.S. funding for the organization. But with both the White House and the Congress recently gravitating towards reexamining the United States’ disproportionate financial contribution to international organizations, America departing from the UN is no longer such a far-fetched notion....
...The declaration enumerated three conditions under which a nation could withdraw: (1) when the UN was revealed to be unable to fulfill its role of maintaining peace, (2) when a member was unable to accept a charter amendment that had come into force, (3) or when a member feels constrained to withdraw because of exceptional circumstances. Proving that the UN has failed to fulfill its role or that there is an unacceptable amendment coming into force would be extremely difficult. Even the more general and open-ended “exceptional circumstances” clause cannot be interpreted as allowing withdrawal for any reason....
