The US’ reported withdrawal from the UNHRC and some other vital UN agencies could be seen as a fillip to anti-democratic and ultra-nationalistic forces worldwide. Besides, the stark message is being conveyed that the developing regions of the world would from now on suffer further impoverishment and powerlessness.

The UNHRC needs to be more effective and proactive in bringing to book those states that are lagging in upholding and implementing human rights standards. But thus far it has been notable in the main in only ‘naming and shaming’ periodically those countries that stand accused of human rights and associated violations. More states and their rulers who have proved notorious violators of International Law, for instance, need to be brought to justice.

Hopefully, the UNHRC would be more dynamic in carrying out its responsibilities going forward but it needs material, moral and financial sustenance in increasing measure as it goes about trying to implement its brief. By withdrawing its support for the UNHRC at this juncture the US has further weakened the body and thereby provided a stimulant to the forces of repression worldwide.

What ought to be equally disquieting for the ethically-conscious is the withdrawal of US support for the WHO, the UN agency for Palestinian refugees or the UNRWA and the Paris Climate Agreement. With these actions the US under President Donald Trump has forfeited all claims to being the world’s foremost democracy. It could no longer lead from the front, so to speak, in championing human rights and democratic development.

It is no coincidence that almost at the time of these decisions by the US, President Trump is meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. At the time of writing what transpired at these talks is not known to the public but it is plain to see that under the ultra-rightist Israeli Prime Minister, there would be no easy closure to the Middle East conflict and the accompanying blood-letting.

This is in view of the fact that the hawkish Trump administration would be hand-in-glove with the Netanyahu regime right along. There would be no political solution in the foreseeable future nor could it be guaranteed by the main stakeholders to the Middle East question that the current ceasefire would continue.

As mentioned in this column before, Israel would need strong security guarantees from the Palestinian camp and its supporters before it sits earnestly at the negotiating table but a policy of repression by the Israeli state would in no way help in resolving the conflict and in ushering even a measure of peace in the region. With the staunch support of the Trump administration the Netanyahu regime could stave off Palestinian resistance for the time being and save face among its supporters but peace in the Middle East would continue to be a lost cause.

The issues in focus would only be further compounded by the US decision to cease support for the rehabilitation and material sustenance of Palestinian refugees. This policy decision would only result in the further alienation and estrangement of Palestinians from the Western world. Consequently, Intifada-type uprisings should only be expected in the future.

As should be obvious, the US decision to pull out of the WHO would further weaken this vital agency of the UN. A drop in material, medical and financial assistance for the WHO would translate into graver hardships for the suffering civilians in the world’s conflict and war zones. The end result could be the alienation of the communities concerned from the wider international community, resulting in escalating law and order and governance issues worldwide. Among other things, the world would be having on its hands aggravating identity politics consequent to civilian publics being radicalized.

Considering the foregoing, the inference is inescapable that the US is heading in the direction of increasing international isolation and a policy of disengaging from multilateral institutions and arrangements geared to worthy causes that could serve world peace. As matters stand, it would not be wrong to conclude that the Trump administration is quite content with the prevailing ‘international disorder’.

One of the most negative consequences of the US decision to pull out of the UNHRC is the encouragement the forces of repression and ultra-nationalism could gain by it. In almost all the states of South Asia, to consider one region that is notable from this viewpoint, the forces of ultra-nationalism and majoritarian chauvinism could be said to be predominant.

Unfortunately, such forces seem to be on the rise once again in even post-Hasina Bangladesh. In Sri Lanka these forces are somewhat dormant at present but they could erupt to the surface, depending on how diligently the present government guards against their rise.

However, the government of Sri Lanka could not be said to be going the extra mile currently to blunt the appeal of ultra-nationalism, whether it is of the Southern kind or of the Northern kind. Crunch time for the Sri Lankan state would come when it has to seriously cooperate with the UNHRC and help bring those accused of war crimes in Sri Lanka to justice. On whether it could cooperate in this exercise would depend the democratic credentials of the present regime.

The cumulative result of the Trump administration weakening the UN and its agencies would be the relentless rise of anti-democratic, fascistic and repressive regimes the world over. Given this backdrop, one could expect the war in the Ukraine and those wasting civil wars in Africa to rage on. In the case of the Ukraine, the possibility of the US and NATO not being of one mind on ways of ending the war there, could render closure of the conflict any time soon impossible.

However, waiting on the US with the expectation that it would be pulling itself together, so to speak, before long and addressing the issue of international law and order would be tantamount to handing over the world to a most uncertain future. It is highly unlikely that the Trump administration would prove equal to the challenge of bringing even a measure of order out of the current global chaos, given the primacy it would be attaching to what it sees as its national interest.

Rather than wait in suspense, democracy oriented sections the world over would do well to come together in a meeting of minds, with the UN playing a catalytic role in it, to figure out how they could pool all the resources at their command to bring about a world order that would be more respectful of International Law in word and spirit.