A Few Thoughts on the US Vote at the ExBoard : Kul Gautam

A sad day for UNICEF— for the first time in its history, the US delegation forced a vote at the Executive Board on the approval of UNICEF country programs, which were previously always approved by consensus (following, if necessary, informal negotiations and amendments on a no-objection basis).

The good news is that all country programs were approved with the support of ALL Board members, except the US, which cast the single negative vote, referring to the Trump administration's position on DEI and related matters.

I am surprised that the US actually pushed for a vote at the UNICEF Board, knowing full well that there was no chance for its views to prevail—especially in the second round. Knowing it would be isolated, I would have thought that, at most, the US would have abstained rather than voting "no" to all UNICEF country programs. At this UNICEF Board, the US delegation obviously did not have much time to try to cultivate and strong-arm other delegates to garner any support for its position. But I predict that at future Boards, US embassies will be instructed to drum up support for its position from many countries.

If the US was so adamant on calling for a vote at the UNICEF Board, knowing it would be quite isolated, it is safe to assume that all forthcoming UN meetings and conferences will be contentious once again, and the US will become quite a pariah state in most multilateral negotiations. Too bad for the US. Wish the American voters would realize how extreme and unpopular the Trump administration’s policies are globally. You cannot be a leader if you have no followers!

I do not know any more background on the US position at the UNICEF Board than what we can glean from the rhetoric and realities of what's happening in Washington, DC, in the last three weeks. However, I note that the authors of The Federalist article are Stefano Gennarini and Iulia-Elena Cazan, both from C-Fam (Center for Family & Human Rights). C-Fam was earlier known as the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute. Working in coordination with the UN Mission of the Holy See and other like-minded delegates from conservative Catholic and Islamic countries at the UN, C-Fam gave UNICEF a hard time when we were negotiating the Declaration and Plan of Action at the UNGA Special Session on Children in 2001/2002. I describe the saga of the challenges of dealing with C-Fam and the Catholic-Muslim group of states at the UN (whom we informally called the "Unholy Alliance") in a chapter of my memoir book, pages 351–360, entitled: The Joy and Pain of Working with the Holy See.

I anticipate that the "Unholy Alliance" will be revived and more energized at the UN. Together, they will garner more support than we imagine, as there are many regimes that share Trump's views, especially on LGBTQ and transgender issues—though not so many on DEI as such (as it relates to gender, race, disability, etc.).

To be effective, UNICEF will need to be balanced and prudent—not to compromise on key child and human rights principles of non-discrimination, but also not to be carried away with the LGBTQ and transgender issues that are sometimes given undue importance by their activist constituencies.

Wish UNICEF good luck and wisdom in navigating some tough times during the Trump II tenure.

Kul Gautam