---

Maybe Trump could follow up on his non-appointment of Elise Stefanik as US Ambassador to the United Nations—who has been virulently anti-UN—by withdrawing the US from the United Nations entirely.

The UN’s 39-storeyed building, the Times columnist remarked, has “amazing views of the East River”—and said, rather sarcastically, it would be a great condo conversion– as a luxury apartment complex.

A White House Executive Order last February was titled “Withdrawing the United States from, and ending funding to certain United Nations organizations, and reviewing United States support to ALL international organizations.”

President Trump, who withdrew the US from the UN Human Rights Council, the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Climate Treaty, has threatened to pull out of UNESCO and the UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) for Palestine Refugees in the Near East– and also to terminate US contracts with the World Food Programme (WFP) in Rome (which was later reversed and described as “a mistake”).

And could Trump reverse his withdrawals from UN agencies –as he did with tariffs? But that seems very unlikely.

Trump’s staggering US tariffs worldwide have not only threatened the longstanding ground rules in world trade but also undermined the Geneva-based World Trade Organization (WTO), described as the only global international organization dealing with the rules of trade between nations.

Deborah Elms, head of trade policy at the Hinrich Foundation, which is focused on trade, was quoted as saying: “I would say the WTO is toast, but what matters now is how other members respond”.

“Do they stand up for the system? Or do they also ignore key principles, provisions and practices?”

In his unpredictable on-again, off-again decision-making, Trump backed down last week on most reciprocal tariffs for a period of 90 days, citing new talks with foreign nations, explaining his reversal. But China, he said, would not be included, and he raised tariffs on its exports to 125 percent.

Perhaps after 90 days, the tariffs will be at play once again, continuing to de-stabilize world trade and the global economy.

The move leaves a universal 10 percent tariff on all other countries except Canada and Mexico, which face separate duties. But it undoes some of the original tariffs — 20 percent on the European Union, 24 percent on Japan, 46 percent on Vietnam.

China has said it will impose reciprocal tariffs on all imports from the United States, escalating a trade war between the world’s two largest economies.

Mandeep S. Tiwana, Interim Co-Secretary-General CIVICUS, a global alliance of civil society organizations (CSOs), told IPS: “We are entering a dangerous age of values-free transactional diplomacy which is leading to the breakdown of the rules based international order”.

A lot of it, he pointed out, has to do with the rise of authoritarianism and populism over the past few years which has elevated political leaders who spread disinformation and rule by personality cult rather than established norms.

“Civil society and the independent media serve as important checks on the exercise of arbitrary power in the public interest but are being attacked in unprecedented ways,” he declared.

Sadly, humanity has been here before in the period prior to the start of the first and second world wars in the twentieth century, which caused immeasurable death and destruction.

Autocratic and populist regimes, he said, are deliberately undermining international norms that seek to create peaceful, just, equal and sustainable societies.

Notably, civil society organising and citizen action offer the last line of defence against the relentless assault on cherished ideals enshrined in constitutional and international law,” said Tiwana.

Asked if the rash of tariffs would lead to a global economic recession, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres told reporters April 8: “I’ve been clarifying my position about this issue time and time again. Trade wars are extremely negative. Nobody wins with a trade war. Everybody tends to lose”.

“And I’m particularly worried with the most vulnerable developing countries, in which the impact will be more devastating. I sincerely hope that we will have no recession, because a recession will have dramatic consequences, especially for the poorest people in the world,” he warned.

Dr Jim Jennings, president of Conscience International and Executive Director of US Academics for Peace, told IPS the widespread “Hands Off” protests in the US threaten to return the country to the decades of debate over tariffs that took place during the 19th Century. The issue then, as now, was protectionism—believed to enrich the manufacturing class.

Whereas the Whigs (today’s Republicans) wanted high tariffs, the idea of free trade as a way to reach prosperity was the mantra of the Democrats, who favored the working class.

President Lincoln favored tariffs, but by 1860 admitted that arguing for a protective tariff was unwise for political reasons—few people at that time favored it. Most Americans had come to realize that high tariffs were protecting the moneyed class and simply raise taxes for everybody. Lincoln knew he was unlikely to be elected President if tariffs were the key to his campaign.

Today’s bewildering day in-day out bluffs and threats by Mr. Trump means that the market will continue to bounce around. “Wall Street likes certainty, but the only certainty we can see is that the US economy is in the hands of amateurs”.

“While the idea of comparing our globalized economy to that of 1840-60 is problematic, with the world already teetering on the verge of WW III, a Trade War is the last thing we need,” declared Dr Jennings.

Andreas Bummel, Executive Director, Democracy Without Borders, told IPS “from the standpoint of democratic checks and balances, it is concerning that the US President apparently can unleash a trade war with most of the world’s countries while the US Congress simply looks on.”

But according to an Associated Press (AP) report April 9, the State Department has rolled back an undisclosed number of sweeping funding cuts to U.N. World Food Program emergency projects in 14 impoverished countries, saying it had terminated some of the contracts for life-saving aid “by mistake”.

“There were a few programs that were cut in other countries that were not meant to be cut, that have been rolled back and put into place,” State Department spokeswoman Tammy Bruce told reporters.

Meanwhile, China has said it will retaliate by imposing reciprocal tariffs on all imports from the United States. “This practice of the U.S. is not in line with international trade rules, undermines China’s legitimate rights and interests, and is a typical unilateral bullying practice,” China’s finance ministry said in a statement.

China has also filed a lawsuit with the World Trade Organization, saying the U.S. tariffs were “a typical unilateral bullying practice that endangers the stability of the global economic and trade order.”

Dr. Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, Director-General of the WTO, said the Secretariat is closely monitoring and analysing the measures announced by the United States on April 2, 2025.

“Many members have reached out to us and we are actively engaging with them in response to their questions about the potential impact on their economies and the global trading system.”

The recent announcements, he pointed out, will have substantial implications for global trade and economic growth prospects.

“While the situation is rapidly evolving, our initial estimates suggest that these measures, coupled with those introduced since the beginning of the year, could lead to an overall contraction of around 1% in global merchandise trade volumes this year, representing a downward revision of nearly four percentage points from previous projections”

“I am deeply concerned about this decline and the potential for escalation into a tariff war with a cycle of retaliatory measures that lead to further declines in trade.”

It is important to remember that, despite these new measures, the vast majority of global trade still flows under the WTO’s Most-Favored-Nation (MFN) terms.

“Our estimates now indicate that this share currently stands at 74%, down from around 80% at the beginning of the year. WTO members must stand together to safeguard these gains.”

Trade measures of this magnitude have the potential to create significant trade diversion effects. “I call on Members to manage the resulting pressures responsibly to prevent trade tensions from proliferating,” said Dr Okonjo-Iweala.

IPS UN Bureau Report

  Source

---

Perhaps with more to come.

The cuts were best symbolized with an image of Musk wielding a heavy chainsaw aimed at slashing “wasteful spending”

But the layoffs and subsequent reversals– the on-again, off-again decisions– have triggered chaos in the nation’s capital.

And political outrage is fast becoming the norm.

Musk, the tech billionaire, who acts as a virtual Prime Minister to President Trump, has called on the U.S. to exit the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the United Nations.

“I agree,” he wrote in response to a post from a right-wing political commentator, saying “it’s time” for the U.S. to leave NATO and the UN.”

The threat against the UN has been reinforced following a move by several Republican lawmakers who have submitted a bill on the U.S. exit from the U.N., claiming that the organization does not align with the Trump administration’s “America First” agenda.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/no-sane-country-would-stand-this-lawmakers-launch-effort-withdraw-u-s-from-united-nations

What’s next?

The abrogation of the 1947 US-UN Headquarters Agreement?

That 78-year-old agreement helped establish the world body in a former decrepit slaughter house in Turtle Bay New York.

The Agreement is an international treaty, and under international law, treaties are generally binding on the parties that sign them. However, the U.S. has a constitutional process for withdrawing from treaties.

In an article in the Wall Street Journal March 14, titled “The U.N. Is Ripping America Off in New York”, Eugene Kontorovich, a senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation and a professor at George Mason University School of Law, points out the U.S. offered to host the newly-created U.N. after World War II, amid a wave of optimism about the organization’s ability to prevent future wars.

John D. Rockefeller Jr. donated the land, and the headquarters was given an interstate-free loan from Washington that would be worth billions today.

The United Nations shall not be moved unless the headquarters district ceases to be used for that purpose, the agreement says. Some U.N. officials have taken this to mean the U.N. can’t be evicted.

“But the agreement is a treaty, and the default rule of international law is that treaties, unless they say otherwise, last as long as the parties wish. If the U.S. cancels the treaty, the entire arrangement disappears, nothing in the treaty’s text prohibits withdrawal. Indeed, had an irrevocable agreement been intended, (the US) Congress, which is needed to approve treaties, would not have allowed the agreement to pass without making it explicit”.

While the treaty refers to the “permanent” headquarters of the U.N., this simply means “durable.” Many international treaties use “permanent” in this way, to mean long-lasting, not eternal. The Permanent International Court of Justice lasted from 1922-46.

“Trump should reopen the 1947 agreement locating its headquarters. It was a terrible real-estate deal”, declared Kontorovich

Dr. Stephen Zunes, a Professor of Politics and International Studies at the University of San Francisco, told IPS removing the United Nations headquarters from the United States has long been advocated by the far right and generally dismissed as a fringe idea not to be taken seriously.

However, as the Trump administration has already demonstrated, even the most extreme ideologically-driven proposals can indeed end up being implemented as policy, he said.

“The United States has not always upheld its obligations under the treaty, such as in 1988 when the Reagan administration refused to allow PLO chairman Yasir Arafat to address the world body, resulting in the entire General Assembly relocating to Geneva to hear his speech”.

Removing the United Nations headquarters from the United States, he argued, “would symbolize the end of the global leadership we have had since the end of World War II when the victorious allies established the world body.”

Along with the Trump administration’s decision to disestablish the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), the Fulbright Program, and other symbols of American leadership internationally, it would end any semblance of the United States remaining a preeminent force in international cooperation.

At the same time, the United States has increasingly become an outlier when it comes to the international community rather than a leader or partner.

“This is true even under Democratic administrations, as indicated by Biden’s rogue positions in regard to Israel’s war on Gaza, Palestinian statehood, the International Court of Justice, the International Criminal Court, and other UN institutions.”

Having the UN headquarters in a more neutral location may end up being for the best, said Dr Zunes, who has written extensively on the politics of the United Nations.

So far, the US has withdrawn from the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) and the World Health Organization (WHO), while it has warned that two other UN organizations “deserve renewed scrutiny”– the UN Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA)—a warning seen as a veiled threat of US withdrawal from the two UN agencies.

Meanwhile, the United States has cut $377 million worth of funding to the UN reproductive and sexual health agency, UNFPA.

Giving an indication of UN agencies moving some of their functions out of the US, Secretary-General Antonio Guterres told reporters at a briefing last month: “We have been investing in Nairobi, creating the conditions for Nairobi to receive services that are now in more expensive locations”.

“And UNICEF will be transferring soon some of the functions to Nairobi. And UNFPA will be essentially moving to Nairobi. And I can give you many other examples of things that are being done and correspond to the idea that we must be effective and cost-effective,” he said.

Asked about the possible withdrawal of the US from the world body, Martin S. Edwards, Associate Dean for Academic and Student Affairs, School of Diplomacy and International Relations at Seton Hall University, told IPS it would not be clear what the intent of this move would be.

In fact, what is certain, he pointed out, is that it would be a mistake of gigantic proportions. The Trump administration, solely to curry favor with some small fraction of its base, would be handing a huge diplomatic victory to China, who would not hesitate to jump at the chance to host the UN.

“And even this White House has to see that, so I don’t see this as advancing US interests in any form. On the contrary, had the White House thought the UN as unimportant, they wouldn’t have designated Elise Stefanik as UN ambassador,” he declared.

A report in the Washington Examiner last January said Stefanik, the fourth-ranking Republican in the House of Representatives, and the US Ambassador-elect to the UN, has vowed to utilize her skills as a lawmaker to scrutinize the funding provided to the U.N. and cut the budget provided if necessary.

“As a member of Congress, I also understand deeply that we must be good stewards of U.S. taxpayer dollars,” Stefanik said. “The U.S. is the largest contributor to the U.N. by far. Our tax dollars should not be complicit in propping up entities that are counter to American interests, antisemitic, or engaging in fraud, corruption, or terrorism.”

As the largest single contributor, the US currently pays 22% of the United Nations’ regular budget and 27% of the peacekeeping budget. Still, the US owes $1.5 billion to the UN’s regular budget.

And, between the regular budget, the peacekeeping budget, and international tribunals, the total amount the US owes is $2.8 billion.

IPS UN Bureau Report

  Source