After UN threats, few signs Trump will cut money where his mouth is
search

After UN threats, few signs Trump will cut money where his mouth is

Administration appears to gingerly step back from warnings it will slash funding for those who backed resolution rejecting US recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital

The voting results are displayed on the floor of the United Nations General Assembly in which the United States declaration of Jerusalem as Israel's capital was declared "null and void" on December 21, 2017 in New York City. Spencer Platt/Getty Images/AFP)
The voting results are displayed on the floor of the United Nations General Assembly in which the United States declaration of Jerusalem as Israel's capital was declared "null and void" on December 21, 2017 in New York City. Spencer Platt/Getty Images/AFP)

WASHINGTON (AP) — After threatening to cut off nations that rebuked him over Jerusalem, President Donald Trump faces a key question about his global credibility: Will he follow through?

Most of the world defied the United States on Thursday at the UN, voting for a resolution that declares Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital to be “null and void.”

Only a day earlier, Trump had linked the vote to future U.S. foreign assistance, telling reporters: “Let them vote against us. We’ll save a lot. We don’t care.”

List of how countries voted in the December 21, 2017 UN resolution rejecting US recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. (Courtesy)

Trump’s UN ambassador, Nikki Haley, upped the ante further in a speech just before the vote. Not only was foreign aid in the crosshairs, but US funding for the United Nations, too, she said. Haley said the United States would “remember this day” when it was singled out for exercising its sovereignty.

“We will remember it when we are called upon to once again make the world’s largest contribution to the United Nations,” Haley said in the General Assembly.

United States Ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley, (R) speaks with Britain’s Ambassador to the United Nations Matthew Rycroft after addressing the General Assembly prior to the vote on Jerusalem, on December 21, 2017, at UN Headquarters in New York. ( AFP PHOTO / EDUARDO MUNOZ ALVAREZ)

Yet the ultimatums from Haley and Trump did not dissuade almost all the top recipients of the billions of dollars Washington gives each year to help with security, development and other needs.

And within hours of the UN vote, the Trump administration started gingerly backing away from its funding threats.

In Washington, State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert said cuts to countries that opposed the US were not a foregone conclusion.

“The president’s foreign policy team has been empowered to explore various options going forward with other nations,” Nauert said. “However, no decisions have been made.”

Palestinian Foreign Minister Riyad al-Malki , speaks on the floor of the United Nations General Assembly on December 21, 2017 in New York City. (Spencer Platt/Getty Images/AFP)

On UN funding, Haley’s office suggested the Jerusalem vote alone would not lead the Trump administration to cut off the global organization. Under Trump, the US has been conducting a broader review of United Nations funding and has already cut money to some specific UN agencies over abortion-related concerns.

“We will use UN votes as one factor in our foreign relations,” Haley’s office, known as the US Mission to the United Nations, said in a statement. “It’s not going to be the only factor, or even necessarily the number one factor, but it will no longer be ignored.”

It was a rare moment of soft-pedaling by the Trump administration, considering the president’s aversion to backing down from a fight or falling short on a promise. To the contrary,

Trump has often credited himself with restoring America’s credibility when it issues threats by following through when US adversaries cross “red lines” that he has set.

US President Donald Trump speaks alongside Secretary of State Rex Tillerson (L) during a cabinet meeting in the Cabinet Room at the White House in Washington, DC, December 20, 2017. (AFP/Saul Loeb)

In this case, though, there were signs that Trump intended his threat, delivered in a Cabinet meeting Wednesday, more as rhetoric than policy. The warning had appeared to catch the State Department and other agencies off-guard, leading them to seek more details from the White House’s National Security Council on how to proceed.

A senior Trump administration official said there was no plan as of Thursday for moving ahead with eliminating aid to countries that rebuked the president. The official wasn’t authorized to discuss the issue publicly and spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity.

In all, 128 countries voted “yes” to rebuke the United States. Nine voted “no,” 35 abstained, and 21 didn’t vote. Although the US lost handily, the tally was better for the US than many had expected.

Graphic shows top U.S. aid recipients and how they voted on UN resolution condemning U.S. declaration on Jerusalem.

Of the top 10 beneficiaries of US assistance this year, only Israel voted “no” — unsurprising, given that Israel’s government is overjoyed by Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem.

All the rest defied Trump by voting “yes,” with the exception of Kenya, which didn’t vote. Afghanistan, for which about $4.3 billion in US money was set aside in 2017, voted “yes” to rebuke Trump.

The “yes” votes included Egypt, which received roughly $1.4 billion in US aid, and Jordan, which received about $1.3 billion. Although both Arab nations are close US security partners that rely on American dollars, both would risk political upheaval at home if they did not voice opposition to the idea of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.

Which raises the question: Would the United States, hoping to make a point about Israel, really cut off Jordan and Egypt, the only two Arab countries that have peace deals with the Jewish state? It would seem a counterintuitive move given Trump needs those countries’ support to succeed in securing the elusive Israeli-Palestinian peace deal his aides are pursuing.

“The principle of linking bilateral assistance to UN votes is a sound one,” said David Makovsky, director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a think tank focused on the Middle East. “But I wouldn’t unveil it here. I don’t know if I would inaugurate this policy on a vote about Jerusalem, given its religious resonance in the Arab and Muslim worlds.”

AP Diplomatic Writer Matthew Lee contributed to this report.

read more:
comments