The United Nations is poised for a seismic shift in its dynamics with the anticipated arrival of Congressional representative Elise Stefanik as the new US Ambassador, a choice made by none other than former President Donald Trump. At her Senate confirmation hearing, Stefanik laid her cards on the table, proclaiming that her philosophy of multilateral cooperation would be decidedly America-centric, with Israel close on America’s heels.
“If confirmed, I will ensure that our mission to the United Nations strictly adheres to the interests of the American populace, reflecting President Trump’s America First peace-through-strength doctrine,” she asserted, the confidence in her voice unmistakable.
Hailing from New York, the outspoken Congresswoman made it abundantly clear that she expected substantial returns on investment from the United Nations, which has been around for more than eight decades. “The US is the largest contributor by a long shot,” she emphasized, “and our taxpayer dollars should not support organizations that oppose American interests, propagate anti-Semitism, or engage in corruption and terrorism.” Talk about pulling no punches!
Stefanik began her political journey on a moderately conservative footing but has since transformed herself into what some might describe as “Trump’s top soldier” in the House of Representatives—a metamorphosis that has drawn both accolades and harsh critiques. Anjali Dayal, an assistant professor of international politics at Fordham University, noted this remarkable evolution, pointing to her robust support of Israel during its conflict in Gaza and suggesting it would be a cornerstone of her tenure at the UN.
During her confirmation, she didn’t mince her words when vowing to combat what she called the “anti-Semitic rot” infecting the United Nations. She passionately argued that the US must serve as a “voice of moral clarity,” emphasizing the necessity of rallying behind Israel, which she described as the “most precious ally” the US possesses. A bold stand, perhaps, but is it wise?
When challenged by Democratic Senator Chris Van Hollen of Maryland about Palestinian self-determination, she sidestepped the question with a fiery response, declaring it “an outrage that Hamas and Hezbollah have stripped the human rights of Palestinian people.” Yet her loyalty to Israel shone through as she proclaimed it a “beacon of human rights in the region.” Talk about a tightrope walk!
Pressed further by Van Hollen regarding whether she supported the Israeli right-wing narrative that Israel possesses a “biblical right” to the West Bank, she responded affirmatively. His retort was equally pointed, stating that achieving “peace and stability” in such a volatile region would become an uphill battle if the sentiments she expressed became the norm. It’s a tight corner to navigate for the incoming US Mission, as it inevitably sets the stage for potential clashes with the UN Secretariat and its broader membership.
In a twist of events, UN Chief Antonio Guterres, speaking at the World Economic Forum in Davos, warned that Israel might be bolstered by its military victories to push monumental plans for annexing the West Bank. This sentiment was echoed through a significant resolution passed by the UN General Assembly last September, which called for an immediate end to Israel’s “unlawful presence” in the territory.
When approached for an official response to Stefanik’s declarations, a spokesperson for the UN Secretary-General reaffirmed that the West Bank is considered part of the occupied Palestinian territories. “It’s clear that the future of these regions must be settled through negotiations between the Israeli and Palestinian authorities,” they noted, thus positioning themselves in stark contrast to Stefanik’s bullish stance.
The climate at the UN, under President Joe Biden, had already been somewhat isolated regarding support for Israel’s aggressive actions in Gaza, particularly following the deadly Hamas-led offensive earlier this month. Yet, consensus among nations remains inclined towards establishing a “two-state solution,” a sentiment tragically undercut by recent Israeli endeavors to expand settlements in the West Bank. Linda Thomas-Greenfield, the outgoing U.S. Ambassador, voiced her concerns before the Security Council, lamenting that more settlement units were approved in the last year than at any comparable time this decade. A dire signal indeed.
Pundits are bracing for more of the same from the Trump administration, given its history. During his previous term, Trump angered the international community by shifting the U.S. Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, an action that faced widespread condemnation in the General Assembly, prompting Trump to instruct then-U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley to “take names.” With Stefanik stepping into her new role, global diplomats may need to keep their helmets ready.
Stefanik’s priorities are clear, steadfastly focusing on Israel, but she also has her sights on confronting the growing influence of China within the UN. “China has made impressive strides in placing its diplomats in decision-making positions across various sub-agencies,” she pointed out, insinuating that this is just the beginning of engagement with international governance.
Yet, irony is not lost on observers: the U.S. pulled back from UN engagement during Trump’s last tenure, creating a vacuum that China is now eager to fill. Stefanik dryly observed that the U.S. must engage more vigorously with technical bodies of the UN—focusing on telecommunications, AI, and civil aviation—to counteract this trend. It’s almost like they realized they were asleep at the wheel.
Coincidentally, Stefanik’s arrival coincides with China’s presidency of the UN Security Council for February, making for an interesting—and potentially contentious—dynamic. While the U.S. gears up to assert its voice in selected UN matters, it is simultaneously retreating from critical topics such as climate change and global health where China is set to take center stage. Guterres’ recent declaration predicting the demise of fossil fuels starkly contrasts with Trump’s advocacy for “drill, baby, drill,” highlighting a growing chasm between future U.S. policy and global consensus.
In a strategy reminiscent of a soap opera villain, Trump reignited his pointed critiques of key international health organizations as he severed ties with the World Health Organization. His decision to withdraw from this key global player was framed as a move to distance the U.S. from what he called “China’s propaganda,” but it left the WHO contemplating a bleak financial future—$1.2 billion in contributions from the U.S. now in jeopardy. Richard Sullivan from King’s College London remarked that the fallout could freeze initiatives and programs essential for global health efforts.
However, this turbulent era may yet spur much-needed reforms. “While the WHO’s situation is concerning, it might galvanize the impetus for reform,” Sullivan offered optimistically. “Sometimes, a good jolt is what’s needed to shake stuff up.”
In her confirmation hearing, Stefanik underscored that certain UN agencies, such as UNICEF and the World Food Programme, could expect continued U.S. support. Yet, she promised a broad review of all U.S. funding, signaling a potentially contentious reevaluation process across the board.
For many within the UN, Stefanik’s installation could signal a wave of change—an opportunity to scrap old ways. “We must pursue reform,” she declared, echoing sentiments long advocated by senior UN leadership who argue that the organization is ill-equipped for the challenges ahead. Could this be an opportunity to clean house under the guise of reform? Anjali Dayal speculated that it might provide a cover for unpopular reforms—changes that might have faced backlash if framed differently.
While UN insiders are cautiously optimistic about the prospect of a collaborative U.S. mission minus the apparent “slash-and-burn” strategy many anticipated, the underlying message is starkly clear: cross Trump, and one might face repercussions. With this tumultuous backdrop, the stage is set for a dramatic turn in U.S.-UN relations. Buckle up; it’s going to be an eventful ride.
Report By Axadle Desktop
