UN Resolution Promoting Gender and Climate Agendas Under Humanitarian Aid Framework Withdrawn After U.S. Pressure

During the 59th and 60th meetings of the General Assembly, held last December, delegates discussed a broad package of humanitarian resolutions under item 72 of the agenda (order of business). Among other things, discussions covered the coordination of humanitarian assistance and disaster response, economic support for individual countries and regions, assistance for the Palestinian people, and efforts to mitigate the effects of the Chernobyl disaster. During the debate, numerous draft resolutions and the amendments submitted to them were also considered. Due to numerous amendments, the UN resolution on strengthening the coordination of humanitarian assistance in emergency situations was withdrawn from the vote.

– “Our debate today is not only about the role and necessity of humanitarian relief but also about how deeply we believe in this institution and how willing we are to stand up for its principles,” said Annalena Baerbock, the President of the General Assembly, ahead of a joint debate on strengthening the coordination of humanitarian assistance and disaster relief.

Particular attention was drawn to the situation concerning the draft resolution A/80/L.25 – “Strengthening of the coordination of humanitarian and disaster relief assistance of the United Nations” (agenda item 72A), which for 33 years was adopted annually by consensus. This year, Sweden, the lead negotiator of the text, withdrew the document in response to numerous amendments concerning controversial provisions in this year’s document that were submitted by Member State delegations.

In her address the representative of Paraguay emphasized the importance of state sovereignty in carrying out humanitarian activities and the protection of life from conception in Paraguay’s constitution.

“Under agenda item 72A, in connection with references made to the 2030 Agenda and the Sustainable Development Goals, we note that paragraph 74 of resolution 70/1, which established the 2030 Agenda and the Sustainable Development Goals, highlights the voluntary nature of the monitoring and review processes for the 2030 Agenda. It should be adapted to the legal frameworks and priorities of all countries. Accordingly, the national government implements development plans in full exercise of the sovereignty of the Paraguayan state, with due respect for constitutional principles. Furthermore, it should be emphasized that Paraguay’s Constitution protects the right to life from the moment of conception. Accordingly, the implementation of the agreed provisions concerning women’s health in the documents currently being acted upon will take into account the fact that national law does not permit abortion,” she noted.

The United States’ position was more extensive and included a detailed critique of the resolution’s provisions that introduced ideological elements. The United States proposed four amendments (A/80/L.30, L.31, L.32, L.33), arguing that they are intended to “protect the original purpose of the resolution from ideological agendas.” In particular, they opposed references to “reproductive and sexual rights,” which, as noted, have in practice taken on controversial meanings associated with abortion, the demands of the LGBT movement, and the “sexual rights” of children. The United States also opposed the provisions on climate change, calling them “disproportionate” and “contrary to the U.S. administration’s pragmatic policy,” and described the text of the resolution as a “globalist wish list.”

The US representative spoke plainly: “The United States takes this opportunity to address two of the humanitarian resolutions under consideration today. Turning first to the resolution on Safety and Security of Humanitarian Personnel and Protection of United Nations Personnel, the United States takes extremely seriously the issue of the safety and security of humanitarian personnel, as well as the safety and security of those at risk of abuse by such actors. However, as we have stated many times, the UN can no longer afford to waste its resources where there is little or no impact.”

He also pointed to the ideological dimension of the resolution, saying:

Unfortunately, this resolution is another example of the type of performative document that does little more than waste UN and Member State resources while failing to meaningfully improve the lives of our collective citizenry. In addition, the Trump Administration has been clear that efforts to advance radical gender ideology in the United Nations will not be supported and, in fact, distract from and directly undermine the real work to protect and promote the rights of women and girls around the world. This body continues to promote divisive and pointless language that fails to support international peace and security. In contrast, the United States is a strong proponent of measures aimed at protecting the rights and safety of women and girls, in order to support genuine equality between biological men and women. Accordingly, the United States requests a vote and will vote no on this resolution.”

Washington’s representative also criticized the language used in UN documents, noting its polarizing nature:

“Turning second to the resolution on international cooperation on humanitarian assistance in the field of natural disasters, from relief to development, this is another example in a growing list of performative resolutions that detract from the United Nations’ core mandate of maintaining international peace and security. UN resolutions should be short, actionable, and forward-looking. Instead, many resolutions—including the one before us—continue to include problematic language that undermines Member States’ trust and confidence in the important work of this body. This text reads as nothing more than a globalist wish list of divisive cultural causes, including climate, sexual and reproductive health, gender, and the perverse donor–recipient industrial complex. It is completely at odds with the Trump Administration’s bold and pragmatic foreign policy. The United States is concerned with the myriad controversial new meanings that sexual and reproductive health terminology has acquired in some UN policies and programs, including abortion rights, transgender ideology, and sexual autonomy for children.” We want to ensure that this resolution is not a blanket endorsement of those new meanings,” the U.S. delegate noted.

He also pointed out the UN’s excessive focus on climate issues:

Many colleagues across the UN system, including the sponsors of this resolution, have become obsessed with the Green New Scam, gender insanity, and other terrible ideas. There is a notion that slightly reducing instances of this absurd language is somehow enough to remedy the affliction. It is not. We must remove all of this insanity from our work. The United States has made clear that the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the Sustainable Development Goals impinge upon State sovereignty as a soft form of global governance, and we will no longer reaffirm them as a matter of course. President Trump has delivered a very clear message: The United Nations and so many nations of the world have gotten wildly off track, exaggerating climate change into the world’s greatest threat. This practice will no longer be tolerated. This resolution is the type of performative exercise that fails to improve the lives of our collective citizenry in any meaningful way. To strengthen coordination in natural disaster response, the onus is primarily on Member States to build stronger partnerships, not UN resolutions. Accordingly, the United States requests a vote and will vote no on this resolution,” he said.

After these amendments were proposed, the Swedish delegation withdrew the document, in order to “protect the interests of hundreds of millions of people for whom it was submitted.” Voting on the amendments was not permitted at all. The Swedish delegation expressed hope that a better outcome in the vote on the text could be achieved if the delegates reach agreement on the entire text. In response, the representative of the United States emphasized that his delegation will continue to oppose this proposal if it is resubmitted for consideration.

“The withdrawal of the resolution on UN humanitarian assistance after more than three decades of consensus, due to the controversial provisions in this year’s draft, shows growing divisions in the international community regarding the role of the UN. We can clearly see that some countries recognize that certain provisions serve ideological purposes and are contrary to the principle of national sovereignty. Furthermore, the debate also revealed the importance of protecting life and the primacy of constitutional norms for many states, as in the case of Paraguay,” notes Julia Książek of the Ordo Iuris Center for International Law.