We hope you are well. We are happy to be back with our regular Thursday Geneva Observer Briefing.

Exclusive: Today, an internal UN memorandum obtained by The G|O confirms that the liquidity crisis affecting the organization won’t be solved quickly. The financial crunch is worrisome for many in Geneva, particularly in the human rights community, and the situation is prompting a debate about the UN itself.

Documents Reveal that the UN’s Liquidity Crisis Won’t Be Solved Quickly, Prompting Real Worries for Many in Geneva—and a Debate About the UN Itself

The liquidity crisis affecting the UN in Geneva is real, and very likely here to last, documents obtained by The G|O reveal. It has many worried, particularly at UN organizations that are operating on a restricted budget even in ‘normal times.’ Although the UN is fully at work, the crisis is mobilizing International Geneva’s attention and has quickly moved from finances to (geo)politics. Today, beyond the widely-reported (anecdotally) shutdown of the UN pizza oven to save on electricity bills, in private many sources wonder aloud if Member States’ delay in paying their contributions might signify a lasting loss of faith in the UN and the multilateral system. 

Long in the making, the financial crisis is undoubtedly linked to current global geopolitical dynamics. It comes at a moment when the UN is already facing a political crisis, and against the backdrop of a growing debate about the effectiveness of global governance and the push for reform.

“We need to ask what this crisis means in terms of the future of these institutions,” one senior diplomatic source told The G|O. Other sources go so far as to say that for some Member States, dragging their financial feet could indeed be politically motivated. Many, however, remark that the wars in Ukraine and in the Middle-East, and in some cases difficult national economic situations, may simply be stretching many countries’ financial wherewithal. At the very least, many sources we talked to admit that it is unlikely that the UN’s funding will increase.

For some critics of the UN, including people who have worked at the organization, the current situation provides the perfect opportunity to take a hard look at how it operates. For one former head of an international organization spoken to by The G|O, the current cashflow crisis is “proof that a review of the way staff consumes resources is needed. […] In some of these organizations, two thirds of the budget go to staff, and not to the mission,” he claims. Other observers, however, caution against such generalizations, arguing that many UN institutions have operated for years with extremely limited resources while trying to serve what are often increasing demands from Member States, all against the backdrop of an extremely tense international landscape with a series of concomitant crises of unprecedented magnitude. 

In any case, the cashflow problems currently plaguing the UN in Geneva, which have led to the temporary closure of the Palais des Nations primarily to save on its utilities bills, won’t disappear when it reopens next Monday, January 15. It is highly unlikely that the US Congress will release funds for the UN while it can’t agree on the country’s own budget bill. Washington’s arrears amount to about $500 million. And China, also late in its contributions, has been increasingly vocal in criticizing the management of the organization, a position seen by UN observers as reflecting Beijing’s opposition to the UN’s advocacy of human rights.

In an interoffice memorandum sent on December 28, 2023, and obtained by The G|O, Chandramouli Ramanathan, the UN’s financial controller, informs the organization’s senior official that “we will be starting 2024 with a significant cash deficit that will have eroded most of our budget liquidity reserves. We are currently taking stock of the cash demands for open commitments in order to finalize the strategy for the management of liquidity for 2024, […] including for special political missions.” The prospects for quick improvement, he warns, are low. Rather, he writes, “Our initial assessment of the liquidity situation points to two highly probable actions, that we will confirm early in January: (a) the hiring restrictions are likely to continue through at least September 2024, and (b) non-post budget allotments are likely to be very significantly curtailed during the first 9 months of the year.” 

In Geneva, the situation is of particular concern for the human rights community.

“I am reasonably worried,” Catherine Marchi-Uhel told The G|O by videoconference—since, like the rest of the UN staff, she’s been working from home, while the heat in her office has been turned down to save money. Marchi-Uhel, who heads The International, Impartial, and Independent Mechanism on Syria (IIIM), established to probe and help prosecute the most serious crimes committed in Syria, is concerned that a continuation of the hiring freeze into 2024, combined with current difficulties in securing additional voluntary contributions, might force the Mechanism to abandon some of its work. From interviewing and protecting witnesses, to safeguarding evidence in a highly-sophisticated digital repository, many of the jobs at the IIIM are highly-skilled. “If a member of staff leaves and you don’t have the same skillset in-house, and have to recruit outside, a lasting hiring freeze could have a very serious impact,” Marchi-Uhel explains. “To date, we have 326 requests for assistance relating to 239 separate investigations in more than 15 jurisdictions. You may say that 326 cases in the Syria situation are a drop in the ocean, but for the families of each victim involved, these investigations are extremely important, and wasting these investigations because of a lack of resources would be a shame. Not being able to ensure the security of the evidence we have collected is not an option, it would be a breach of the commitments we have made to protect our sources and witnesses, many of whom have put their lives in danger to help achieve justice,” says Marchi-Uhel, who has steadfastly urged Member States to adequately fund the Mechanism. Efforts to prosecute crimes in Syria have been hampered by the fact that Damascus has not recognized The Hague International Criminal Court, and that prosecution of serious crimes committed in Syria therefore relies on national jurisdictions.

Marchi-Urel’s worries are shared at the Office of the High-Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR). “The UN Human Rights Office is currently assessing the situation and will shortly inform Member States and relevant stakeholders about the implications for its work and the delivery of its mandate,” it wrote to The G|O.

The UN Information Service at Geneva (UNIS Geneva) told The G|O it would not comment directly on the international organization’s Controller Memorandum sent on December 28, which it considers an internal document. “What we can tell you is that while for the moment we do not foresee cuts in services provided by UNOG, we recognize the need for continued attention and prudent financial management, especially as the UN global liquidity deficit continues,” UNIS Geneva Director Alessandra Vellucci told us. “The closure of the Palais des Nations, which started on 20 December, directly contributed to UNOG’s ending 2023 in a better financial situation than anticipated,” she stressed, confirming that other cost-saving measures started in September 2023, such as reduced heating, minimal night lighting, etc., will continue until further notice.”

Governments, however, are hesitant to talk openly about the issue, which they consider an internal UN discussion. Privately, some worry that critics of the organization may use the current situation to make the argument that you can close the UN without consequences—a criticism already heard during the COVID-19 pandemic. But many sources we talked to concede that, beyond the UN’s cash flow crisis, the “real debate” is indeed over the future of the multilateral system.

Notwithstanding its role as host-country of the UN, Switzerland told The G|O that “Switzerland does not comment on internal UN discussions” and that it cannot “speculate on the hypothetical impact of measures that have not been decided.”

-JC,PHM

The U.S. and Israel: Two Self-Proclaimed Chosen Countries in Need of Demythologizing

As the UN’s highest court, the International Court of Justice, hears the genocide case against Israel brought by South Africa, a provocative opinion piece by Daniel Warner has an interesting perspective on the relationship between the US and Israel.

The bro-hug between President Joseph Biden and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on October 18, 2023, at Tel Aviv airport was more than just a friend welcoming his long-time buddy to his ‘hood. It was also more than just two prominent statesmen hugging as diplomatic allies. For despite whatever tensions have arisen between the two countries over Israel’s disregard for civilians in its onslaught on Gaza, the United States and Israel are tied together by similar self-images as exceptional countries. The U.S. and Israel are soulmates due to sharing foundational narratives of being Chosen.

How else to understand the Biden administration’s hesitancy to force Israel to agree to a ceasefire? How else to understand the embarrassing votes in the Security Council with the United States vetoing calls for a cessation of fighting only to finally abstain on a weak resolution calling for “urgent steps” to allow humanitarian aid into Gaza and to “create the conditions for a sustainable cessation of hostilities?”

The United States and Israel both began with marginal groups looking for refuge to practice their special religious beliefs. The United States’ narrative of being Chosen began with the Pilgrims. Many of the Puritans began their pilgrimage across the Atlantic Ocean searching for a Promised Land, looking for a New Israel where they could practice their religion as they saw fit. The Puritans ended their pilgrimage when they found their Promised Land in what became the United States.

When John Winthrop, the future governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, spoke in 1630 of “a city upon a hill” in describing the settlement his followers were going to inhabit, he was referring to something beyond geography that had a special divine sense of purpose and place. In his sermon, Winthrop preached how the colonists were Chosen: “We are entered into covenant with Him for this work,” he declared. He also warned:

…we must consider that we shall be as a city upon a hill. The eyes of all people are upon us. So that if we shall deal falsely with our God in this work we have undertaken, and so cause Him to withdraw His present help from us, we shall be made a story and a by-word through the world.

John F. Kennedy, among other politicians and presidents, used Winthrop’s image of this United States as a holy place: “I have been guided by the standard John Winthrop set before his shipmates on the flagship Arabella three hundred and thirty-one years ago, as they, too, faced the task of building a new government on a perilous frontier,” he said as president-elect before the general court of Massachusetts. “We must always consider,” he continued, “that we shall be as a city upon a hill—the eyes of all people are upon us.”

“A city upon a hill” is no ordinary urban setting. When Woodrow Wilson said in his presidential campaign of 1912 that “America was chosen and prominently chosen, to show the way to the nations of the world how they should walk in the paths to liberty,” he assumed that the U.S. had a special role in world affairs. Other presidents have referred to the U.S. as a “beacon of hope for the world.” That special, exceptional role implies divine guidance, a position that allows the United States to be above international law all too often. After all, how can those who are not Chosen tell the Chosen what to do?

In the case of Israel, the term Chosen has two meanings. In the first, the term Chosen refers to how Jews see themselves as God’s Chosen people through various covenants beginning with the covenant between God and Abraham. As a result of this exceptionalism, Israel becomes the chosen place for the Chosen. Chaim Potok, in his novel The Chosen, describes the joy of religious Jews upon the creation of the state of Israel by the United Nations on November 29, 1948: “It had happened. After two thousand years, it had finally happened. We were a people again, with our own land. We were a blessed generation. We had been given the opportunity to see the creation of the Jewish state.”

The creation of the state of Israel was more than a geopolitical event; it was a return to a time when territory and religion were inseparable. The Promised Land was the Holy Land. As Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook wrote in the early 20^th century, “The spirit of the Lord and the spirit of Israel are one!” Kook’s son later declared “The State of Israel is divine” after the 1967 war. 

While every country has its own national pride, Israel and the United States have self-images of being special that is unique. “Amid an epic history of claims to heavenly-sent entitlement, only two nation-states stand out for the fundamental, continuous, and enduring quality of their conviction and the intense seriousness (and hostility) with which others take their claims: the United States and Israel,” Todd Gitlin and Liel Leibovitz write in The Chosen Peoples: America, Israel and the Ordeals of Divine Election. “Heavenly-sent entitlement” is the shared value so often promoted between Israel and the United States.

Jewish messianic Zionism can be compared to Americans’ belief in Manifest Destiny “from sea to shining sea.” Both give a sacred politics of place to the land they conquered and occupied; both ignore those who had lived on the land before, Palestinian Arabs or Native Americans.

Count how many times the United States has defended Israel at the United Nations. But it is not enough to quantify the over 40 times the U.S. has vetoed resolutions condemning Israel; the U.S. has also used its leverage to change the language of many resolutions, as it did before abstaining in the latest Security Council resolution. There is something here well beyond the incessant, successful political lobbying of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, so aptly described by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt in The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy. 

Can Israel and the United States see themselves—and act—as normal states? Can they recognize themselves as modern countries, similar to all other modern countries which are subject to international law and generally accepted international norms? If they can, they must demythologize their foundational messianic myths of being Chosen. For Americans, reading A.G. Hopkins’ magisterial American Empire would be a start; it places U.S. history in a traditional international relations context without myths of being exceptional or Chosen.

Israel and the United States have become international pariahs because their Chosen myths have not been demythologized. They remain separate from other countries by continuing to refuse to live in this world as normal states. At this moment, Palestinians are overwhelmed by the horrors of joint actions by the two self-proclaimed Chosen. The need for demythologizing is critical and urgent.

-DW

This piece was first published in Counterpunch.

Elsewhere in the Ecosystem

Secret Backchannel AI Diplomacy In Geneva

Geneva, the FT reports today, was last year chosen twice as the venue for Artificial Intelligence companies OpenAI, Anthropic and Cohere “to engage in secret diplomacy with Chinese AI experts, amid shared concern about how the powerful technology may spread misinformation and threaten social cohesion.” 

"According to multiple people with direct knowledge, two meetings took place in Geneva in July and October last year attended by scientists and policy experts from the North American AI groups, alongside representatives of Tsinghua University and other Chinese state-backed institutions. Attendees said the talks allowed both sides to discuss the risks from the emerging technology and encourage investments in AI safety research. They added that the ultimate goal was to find a scientific path forward to safely develop more sophisticated AI technology."

The British financial paper also reports that the two Geneva meetings were arranged “with the knowledge of the White House, as well as UK and Chinese government officials.” The talks, the British paper writes, are “a rare sign of Sino-US co-operation amid a race for supremacy between the two major powers in the area of cutting-edge technologies such as AI and quantum computing.” 

AI and heteropatriarchy, racial capitalism and a few more…

Staying with AI, we must admit that this recent research paper really caught our attention. In “AI Empire: Unraveling the interlocking systems of oppression in generative AI’s global order,” the authors argue “that the dehumanizing and harmful features of the technology industry that have plagued it since its inception only seem to deepen and intensify.”

Far from a ‘glitch’ or unintentional error, these endemic issues are a function of the interlocking systems of oppression upon which AI is built. […] Specifically, we show that this networked and distributed global order is rooted in heteropatriarchy, racial capitalism, white supremacy, and coloniality and perpetuates its influence through the mechanisms of extractivism, automation, essentialism, surveillance, and containment. Therefore, we argue that any attempt at reforming AI from within the same interlocking oppressive systems that created it is doomed to failure and, moreover, risks exacerbating existing harm. Instead, to advance justice, we must radically transform not just the technology itself, but our ideas about it, and develop it from the bottom up, from the perspectives of those who stand the most risk of being harmed.

Today's Briefing: Philippe Mottaz - Jamil Chade - Daniel Warner

Editorial assistance: David Jenny

Edited by: Dan Wheeler

©The Geneva Observer-2024