¶ US Withdrawal From WHO and UNRWA
This is Inside Geneva . I'm your host , imogen Foulkes , and this is a production from Swissinfo , the international public media company of Switzerland .
In today's program , the Israeli UN ambassador says the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine refugees in the Near East must cease all its operations and evacuate all premises it operates .
UNRWA is what we call the backbone of the humanitarian operation . They are really the operation which all other humanitarian actors depend on .
As part of his blitz of executive orders issued yesterday , President Trump also delivered on a campaign promise to withdraw the United States from the World Health Organization .
What is this withdrawing from ?
the World Health Organization . Sir Ooh , that's amazing . The withdrawal from WHO flew under the radar and it's probably the most consequential thing of all . The United States formed the WHO in the aftermath of World War II and we've been its most influential member and biggest funder for over 75 years .
The Trump administration has issued a halt to nearly all existing foreign aid .
The 90-day suspension is a death sentence for many small NGOs who just don't have the finances to sort of weather this kind of this period . So yeah , shock and awe Late . Today the US State Department suspended all foreign assistance around the world for at least three months .
This is going to mean that all of the vital work of the World Health Organization on health emergencies , putting out fires around the world , polio eradication , aids , tb and malaria all of this important work is going to be even more underfunded .
Donald Trump suspended American foreign aid on day one of his presidency .
We've had periods in the past where Republican US presidents have made statements to the effect that they'll stop funding the UN . They want to pull out of the UN , and the UN pulled through . So we're into difficult times .
There will be some testing years , I think , For existing foreign assistance awards , contracting officers and grant officers shall immediately issue stop work orders .
This notion that's sort of starting to percolate through my brain is this notion that this is really the end of foreign aid as we know it right , and that Somalia , faced with a major famine , the Americans stepped in and provided over a billion dollars .
I don't really see this administration responding to a coming crisis with a major outlay of cash in the way that we have done historically .
Hello and welcome again to Inside Geneva . I'm Imogen Folks Now . It's been a turbulent couple of weeks globally , including here in Geneva , where newly inaugurated President Trump's foreign policy plans are causing shock , dismay and huge worry .
In today's episode we take a deep dive into three areas where US strategy is having a significant effect on humanitarian operations . Strategy is having a significant effect on humanitarian operations . The first is something we were expecting . Israel's ban on the UN Relief Agency for Palestinians , or UNRWA , came into effect just days ago .
Then later in the programme , we'll hear from renowned public health professor , lawrence Gostin , about the US decision to leave the World Health Organisation . Lawrence Gostin about the US decision to leave the World Health Organization , and we'll talk to US-based foreign policy journalist , Colin Lynch about the implications of Washington's freeze on funding for foreign aid .
But let's start with UNRWA . The US , under Joe Biden , withdrew its support from the agency last year following allegations some UNRWA staff were involved in the October 7th attacks . Unrwa immediately fired the staff under suspicion nine out of 13,000 in Gaza and the UN investigated , although many of Israel's claims could not be substantiated .
Israel's parliament voted to ban UNRWA , despite the UN's insistence . The agency is irreplaceable . That ban is now in force , but UNRWA insists it remains committed to working in Gaza .
Jürgen Jensehaugen of the Peace Research Institute Oslo has written a report looking at the effect of banning UNRWA , and he began by telling me that even as the ban came into force , it remained unclear how it would work .
Well , it's actually really unclear . So there's no . It's not without reason that journalists too are kind of baffled by this . The laws were passed and then , after they were passed , israel really ordered their own ministries to figure out how to implement these , and the exact mechanisms for how the laws will be implemented are rather vague .
The first law says that UNRWA will be illegal in Israel . That means that East Jerusalem , as defined by Israel , is part of Israel , now , of course , by the international system . Otherwise East Jerusalem is not part of Israel . But for the Israeli legal system , east Jerusalem is Israel . The other law is more vague .
It says that engagement between Israel and UNRWA will be illegal , meaning that UNRWA can still exist , but Israeli officials cannot engage with UNRWA . And that's where we're getting to complicated territory , because Israel is the occupying power and everything the UN does within the occupied territories really is under the mercy of the occupying power .
So there it's really a question of how can UNRWA operate if they cannot engage with the occupying power .
¶ UNRWA's Crucial Role in Gaza
You would think , given the thousands of people trying to return to northern Gaza and the destruction we have seen in Gaza , that any limit on the humanitarian work which UNRWA has been providing would be quite disastrous .
UNRWA has been providing would be quite disastrous . Yes , absolutely so . Unrwa is what we call the backbone of the humanitarian operation , meaning that they don't only bring in aid themselves , but they are really the operation which all other humanitarian actors depend on .
So , whether that's deconfliction , that is coordination with the Israeli army for security purposes , whether it's maintaining storehouses , whether it's securing distribution centers , unrwa has 5,000 staff members working on aid and health care in the Gaza Strip , whilst other comparable organizations have a handful , a couple of hundred at most .
So all the other agencies really depend on UNRWA . So really , the paradox here is that the ceasefire allows for more aid to come in , which is really good and necessary . The operation for distribution is being picked apart at the same time .
Well , the other UN humanitarian agencies , as you say , they do operate , but UNRWA is the kind of linchpin between all of them . The other UN agencies have said there is no Plan B , we cannot step in . Wouldn't it have been better to come up with a Plan B ?
So the first point is the UN's official position is that there cannot be a Plan B because they cannot accept the legality of the law . The expulsion of the UN agency is illegal and by stating that they are working on a plan B is a de facto acceptance of illegal law .
The other part of it is really that the laws were passed with a 90-day timeline and that simply isn't enough .
If we think about this logistically , if we put aside the principal stance , what we heard when we interviewed people with a lot of humanitarian experience is that transforming the type of operation that UNRWA has in that kind of environment , to do it properly , takes two to three years . And here we have 90 days .
Even if we put aside principles , the UN position was it's just impossible to adapt . Unrwa is the best option we have . The flip side of the coin is given that UNRWA will be banned , wouldn't it be better to at least scramble as much as possible within those 90 days to make sure that at least something was there ?
And there there's really a catch-22 , the tension between the principle stance and the humanitarian imperative , and the UN apparatus really loses out either way . If they go all in on the principal stance , they're not adequately prepared on the humanitarian stance .
If they go all in on the humanitarian stance they're undermining themselves in a principled sense , which then opens for other actors in other conflicts and other contexts to also think about expelling the UN . So it kind of opens a really negative spiral really either way , other actors in other conflicts and other contexts to also think about expelling the UN .
So it kind of opens a really negative spiral really either way , and so it's a really difficult position for the UN to be in .
You said to really replace what UNRWA does would take two to three years . I mean that's partly to do with the fact that they pretty much run the education system , the schools I mean . That I imagine would be very hard to replace .
I mean I think we would be talking about an even bigger window of time in a sense , because there we're really talking long-term developments . Now in the West Bank it's theoretically possible to see a situation where other actors could take over in relative short time .
But in Gaza it's not without reason that people describe it as scholasticide , meaning the systematic destruction of the education system , and UNRWA really is the only operator that has enough capacity to build that up relatively quickly . What the prospects for building up education in Gaza is , it's very difficult to see .
And if UNRWA is not able to operate , there's no other UN agency that does actual operational educational system . So UNICEF can deal with stuff like give advice and help set up curriculum and stuff , but they don't do schools . Unrwa is unique in the sense that it actually runs schools . So you know asking the sense that it actually runs schools .
So you know , asking somebody else to run the schools . Well , who's that going to be ? Now , that's a really interesting question , because Israel has long complained that UNRWA's teaching is biased and too pro-Palestinian or even encouraging terrorism .
Now studies into that have not really borne out Israel's criticisms . Now , studies into that have not really borne out Israel's criticisms . But if UNRWA wasn't there , does that not leave the door open to possibly the kind of if we take the postulate that Israel is making , that UNRWA teaches these terrible school books ?
So , as you said , you know there had been a lot of research into this and , yes , individual cases have been found that are problematic , but overall the school textbooks come out pretty good . The thing UNRWA does is that they take the school textbooks of the host country , and in this case that would be the Palestinian Authority .
When problematic issues arise , they're still forced to use those textbooks . But what they do is they do neutrality teaching , they do critical education processes , they do all these mechanisms that kind of neutralize all the problematic parts of the curriculum . They add human rights teaching , they add additional stuff that's not in the textbooks .
Now if UNRWA collapses and the Palestinian Authority take over , you have the same textbooks , but without all the UN neutrality mechanisms . So if that is Israel's plan , well , they're really stuck with a much worse version of what they claim to be fighting .
But a lot of people in Israel would point to the possible involvement of , I think , nine UNRWA workers , possible connection to the October 7th attack , and say we cannot work with this organization anymore and would say the kind of things that you're saying are really just not addressing the problem .
So those allegations are extremely serious and I think it's very clear , if you look at this kind of objectively , that once UNRWA were told that some of their staff might have been involved , they took steps immediately . They fired all those accused . Even before they had seen the evidence , they started investigating it and they asked Israel for concrete evidence .
And there's been quite a lack of Israeli evidence . Unrwa has received lists of names , but when they've asked for follow-up proof so that they can check up the matter , the evidence has very often been lacking .
That's not to say that there might very well have been individuals involved in the attack , but one has to remember that in Gaza UNRWA employs 13,000 people . They're not a state . They don't have an intelligence operating system . It's very difficult for them to control everybody .
But UNRWA's official line here is that they have zero tolerance , but they acknowledge that it's not zero risk , and so , knowing the context in Gaza , they are aware that they might occasionally be infiltrated by bad actors and they take it very seriously when they are .
And here is another kind of paradox Whoever is going to take over an operation employing thousands of local Palestinians in Gaza , it's not completely unlikely that individuals representing a military faction might sneak in .
That is unfortunate and everything must be done to ensure that that doesn't happen , but that's really the reality on the ground in such a extreme war context as is going on in Gaza . Extreme war context as is going on in Gaza . So I think the best approach would be okay .
Let's work together to have stronger vetting processes , let's share intelligence so we can ensure that this type of infiltration doesn't happen .
Banning the entire operation really undermines the stability that one says one wants to achieve in Gaza , because education , functioning humanitarian processes , development on the ground , working , healthcare that's the kind of thing that fights extremism . The type of war we've seen in Gaza over the past 15 months , that does not fight extremism .
Just taking this out to a slightly wider level , wider implications . Your report calls this the first ever eviction of a UN agency by a UN member state , that member state being Israel . Do you think that other UN member states should be more concerned about this , about the precedent this could be setting in how the UN can function all over the world ?
Yes , I think so . I think we're in rather dangerous territory when it comes to certain standards that have been part of the system that has been shaped after the Second World War .
I'm not saying that Israel is a uniquely bad actor , but I'm saying that the kind of policies that they've engaged vis-a-vis the UN sets a dangerous precedent that other actors with in similar contexts or other contexts in which they feel that the UN is infringing too much upon controlling what a state does or whatever , can be tempted to follow suit .
We see , for instance , how a uniquely high number of UN staff have been killed in Gaza . I mean , we're talking over 270 , I think is the most recent number UN staff have been killed in this war . And if Israel gets away with that , if that becomes kind of an accepted casualty of war , then who's from stopping other states from also killing UN staff on the ?
we have seen , for example , now the new administration in the United States withdraw from the World Health Organization . And interestingly , we've seen Elise Stefanik , the new US ambassador to the United Nations , basically say we like UNICEF and we like the World Food Programme because they protect America's interests .
I mean , from the Geneva standpoint that's kind of not really how the UN works , protecting individual member states' interests .
I think you're absolutely right . I think there is increasing disrespect for what the UN stands for , and I think Israel has really been not just vocal but active , taken very clear steps in this regard .
I mean everything from the shredding of the UN document to the attacks on the UNIFIL soldiers stationed in South Lebanon , to this , you know , political attack and also military attack on UNRWA . So I fear that we're entering really very tense moment in which the UN is core to this strain .
Can it survive ? Do you think can the UN survive this kind of strain ?
I really hope so . We've had periods in the past where typically Republican US presidents have made statements to the effect that they will you know they'll stop funding the UN . They want to pull out of the UN . You know the whole process surrounding the war in Iraq in 2003 was also built around this disrespect for the Security Council and the UN pulled through .
So we're into difficult times . I have absolutely no doubt about that . I hope the UN manages to pull through , but it will be some testing years , I think .
Testing years for the United Nations ahead , says Jürgen Jensehaugen of the Peace Research Institute Oslo , not least for the World Health Organization , which had feared a US withdrawal . Let's not forget Donald Trump tried to do that in his first term but hoped until the last possible moment that he might not take such a drastic step .
Lawrence Gostin is Professor of Global Health at Georgetown University in Washington DC and has long been one of the people liaising between the United States and the WHO . I asked him for his reaction to Trump's decision .
Yes , I'm angry , I'm disheartened . I don't think there's enough understanding of how momentous this is . On day one of Trump's second term , he issued about 100 executive orders on all kinds of issues , like immigration , on climate change truly horrible things .
¶ Impact of US Withdrawal From WHO
But the withdrawal from WHO flew under the radar and it's probably the most consequential thing of all . The United States formed the WHO in the aftermath of World War II and we've been its most influential member and biggest funder for over 75 years . The idea that we would leave this organization that has kept the world safer and healthier is mind-boggling to me .
This is a horrible thing for world health , but I think it may be an even more grievous wound to American national interests because it makes us isolated , alone and far more vulnerable and really fragile .
The consequences and implications of the United States leaving seem to me , from the Geneva standpoint , very worrying , as you say , not just for the world but for the United States itself .
I believe so . Funding is a big part of it , but it's not the only part .
The .
United States funds roughly 20% of WHO's budget , and WHO is already chronically underfunded . It has the same budget as a major US hospital and yet it has a global mandate .
It has a budget that's one quarter of the CDC's , which is only for one country , and so this is going to mean that all of the vital work of the World Health Organization on health emergencies , putting out fires around the world , polio eradication , aids , tb and malaria all of this important work is going to be even more underfunded .
So I think this is a very serious for WHO . I think WHO will survive . They will be nimble . The US will want to come back when we return to our sanity , but I do believe this is a harmful moment , not just in Geneva but really worldwide .
But for the United States itself as well . Everybody describes Donald Trump as a very transactional kind of person . Does he not understand the transaction of sharing information about emerging diseases and how that can be beneficial to the United States has with WHO ?
I don't think he would be taking the decision that he is taking . There are many ways that WHO benefits the United States . One of them you've mentioned is scientific exchange , which is something the US has been particularly strident about over the many , many years that I've been working with .
The US has been particularly strident about over the many , many years that I've been working with the US and with WHO , and for good reason . It's really important to share information about surveillance , epidemiology , outbreaks , mutations . It's important to share pathogen samples , genomic sequencing data .
The United States needs these to be able to understand where the threats lie . Otherwise , we're flying blind . But our pharmaceutical industry and our agencies , like the NIH and CDC and FDA , need them or innovation , so that we can develop the vaccines and the treatments that keep Americans safe and everyone safe .
The Americans are used to being at the front of the line for life-saving medical technologies . They might find themselves at the back of the line when they don't have access to the essential data that WHO routinely shares with the world .
Do you feel for your colleagues at the Centre for Disease Control who apparently have been told this week to cease all contact with the World Health Organization with immediate effect ?
I do . It is a very , very sad day for CDC and CDC staff . I will just say a couple of things First . President Trump often tries to characterize you know , make a caricature of WHO or CDC as being these remote bureaucrats that really don't understand things .
But I know my friends at WHO and CDC to be doctors , nurses , scientists , who come into work every day and do their level best to make the world a little healthier and a little safer . They do it without a lot of glory , without a lot of money , and to vilify them , I think is really a horrible thing and the president can be vindictive .
My very close friend , Tony Fauci , had his security detail taken away by President Trump , which seems to be pure vindictiveness . But I think , beyond the staff at CDC , it's important to understand that the work that they do is important work .
You know when they're told not to communicate it means that Americans don't find out about foodborne outbreaks , they don't investigate outbreaks of avian influenza in our cattle , they don't cooperate with state , local and tribal governments on vaccinations for children and adults , governments on vaccinations for children and adults , and they don't go to Africa , asia , latin
America and try to put out fires before they come to the United States . This is truly damaging , and one of the things that I think about as I look at all of the things , all of these orders that have taken place from the White House is I think I can't think of one way that this advances US national interests or security .
If I did , I would say so , but I literally can't see any benefit to this for the United States .
I'm wondering , though you have been , as I said , quite vocal in your concern and opposition to this decision to leave the WHO
¶ US Withdrawal Impact on UN System
. You mentioned your colleague , tony Fauci Are you nervous at all about the consequences for you personally of the stance you're taking ?
Yes , a little bit . Yes , a little bit . You know our old days trying to work on the fight against AIDS , but the caption said there's Fauci and Gostin , you know , laughing and smiling after all the deaths they caused during COVID . That's dangerous and it's wrong . That's dangerous and it's wrong .
But the sad thing is is that it was retweeted by the incoming director of the NIH . Now , this is really just not the way we should be working together . I'm America . I believe in American health and well-being and our productivity and our economy .
I want the president to succeed to stop calling people names , caricaturing them as being something that they're not , or organizations that are something that they're not , and try to lift things up , build things up . I really think there's a way to do that I think they're you know so better while also advancing American national interests .
Just to clarify there , the NIH , the new director , head of the NIH , that's the US National Institute for Health , new appointment there by the new administration , who retweeted that fairly unpleasant slur against you and Anthony Fauci .
I have a very last question for you and this is a very perhaps Geneva or maybe rest of the world question , because we're all asking ourselves is the United States really now moving away from the whole UN system , not just the WHO ?
But we heard Elise Stefanik , the new US ambassador to the UN , talking about only being interested in UN bodies that serve American interests , which is , as I'm sure you're aware , not quite the purpose of the United Nations . Do you think there's a danger of a real , the world's only superpower leaving the world's only multilateral organization ?
Yeah , no , I don't think Trump would leave the United Nations , the US has a veto in the Security Council .
So I don't think he'll do that , but I do think he will leave a number of UN specialized agencies like WHO , and he's not a person that believes strongly in multilateralism and international cooperation international norms and treaty obligations on health , climate or other aspects . But I think the international community will survive . They will survive this .
I'm absolutely confident of that . In some ways it may bring people together that they might negotiate a pandemic agreement in Geneva , for example , when they otherwise might not have . It will also mean that regions like the African region may have more self-reliance and have a cleaner , louder voice in international negotiations . So I see that there could be benefits .
But overall it's horrible that the United States is not engaging , but we'll survive it . The United States is not engaging , but we'll survive it . And then , after four years , I do believe there'll be a new president and a very different view and America will once again get back to our position as an international leader and someone with high values .
That's my hope and my dream , but it's also my expectation .
Nice to end that interview on at least a faint note of optimism from Lawrence Gostin . I'm sure humanitarian agencies in Geneva share his hopes . But hot on the heels of the WHO withdrawal announcement came a new blow . The US announced a freeze on foreign aid , including everything from demining operations to HIV prevention programs .
Colin Lynch , un and foreign policy journalist , who now writes for the specialist aid and development media platform DevEx , which is , by the way , a great resource for anyone who's interested in the topics we discuss here on Inside Geneva , I asked Colm if the UN in New York shared the dismay of Geneva .
I'm shocked as well . I mean , I'll give you one example the UN Population Fund , which , more than any other agency , was preparing for cuts . They get cut every time a Republican administration comes into office . Trump did it the first time . They knew it was going to happen this time . But the difference is there was also kind of a stop order on work .
In the past the Population Fund they would be allowed to continue the projects that they had already secured financing for and they just wouldn't get anything new . So they would prepare , you know , to find new donors to try and fill the gap .
But this time it's completely caught them off guard and I think , you know , an agency which was expecting hard times is kind of stunned by the way it's unfolded . So this was a sweeping decision . Not clear that they thought through the implications . Maybe they did . Maybe this chaos is exactly what they want .
Maybe they want the whole sector to shrink and it will shrink as a result of a 90-day suspension . I mean , a 90-day suspension is a death sentence for many small NGOs who just don't have the finances to sort of weather this kind of this period . So yeah , shock and awe .
What do you think Trump's strategy is ? I mean , people here in Geneva are asking I mean , is it even a strategy ?
So that's an excellent question and it is a question that's being discussed internally by UN lawyers . So the UN Charter , article 100 , prohibits members of the International Civil Servant from taking orders , from responding to orders from a member state .
So there are , you know , people within the system who believe that the stop order , demand , stop work order is a violation of the UN Charter . So you know , the Americans are powerful enough to do whatever they want and you know the entire sort of industrial humanitarian development system . It's hard to see how it functions without US funding .
So they have leverage to break the rules , to stretch the charter in a way that really pushes the limits of international law .
So whether it's proper or not , I mean , I remember an anecdote many years ago during the Bush administration , I did an interview with a top US official , chris Burnham , who was the head of management and he used to wear on his lapel a US flag .
And I did did an interview which got him into a lot of trouble , where he said sort of plainly you know my constituency , I answer ultimately to US taxpayers , and of course it caused him a lot of grief , particularly with the group of 77 and all that .
But you know there is a tradition of American nationalism , particularly in the Republican Party , where you don't want to be seen as having drunk the Kool-Aid , as becoming too much a part of the UN system , and politically that was , I think . For the Americans that was fine .
And so now here we are again in a situation where I think an administration is willing to go much further than wearing an American flag on their lapel .
You think they could finish off the UN , this administration ?
I don't know , you know , like I , just over the years , the UN , like I see it as sort of like a pendulum , you know it kind of swings into relevance and swings out of it . You think about periods in which the UN , particularly Security Council , has had overwhelming power , the ability to force countries to rewrite their anti-terrorism rules after 9-11 .
And then you would see dips , periods where it was quite paralyzed . Certainly during the pandemic the US and Chinese divisions were making it possible to reach agreement on basically anything , on anything reasonably reasonable about how to respond to the pandemic . So there is a lot of that .
But the US values the Security Council and a lot of Republicans sort of dismiss the UN in the initial part of their administrations and then come around to kind of recognizing that they're quite useful . And I think you know Trump doesn't really hate the UN , you know , if you remember , I mean Don't you think he even knows what it is ?
Oh , yeah , yeah , because he once , you know , had , I remember I had a conversation with Ban Ki-moon and he recalled , like getting a call from Trump because he wanted to do the renovation of the UN building and he was trying to sell Ban Ki-moon on the idea of like changing contractors at the last minute .
But also , you know , when he came in , when he came in , he loved to come to New York , he loved the pageantry . You know , guterres , the Secretary General , would you know , would arrange , and also his then Ambassador , nikki Haley , would arrange high level meetings where he-ambassador Nikki Haley would arrange high-level meetings where he could be the big dog .
I remember him going to the leadership luncheons . He loves that stuff and I don't think he has any sort of inherent hostility towards the UN . I think he just , you know , I don't think he's particularly ideological . So I think if it's useful for him , fine . If it's not useful for him , you know he wants . And that's not just Trump , that's every administration .
I mean . One point that's interesting is that Trump invited both the Secretary General multiple times and the UN Security Council to the White House . Joe Biden never did that , not once . So there are some interesting things , but you know , why would he want ? Would he want to destroy the UN ?
I you know , I don't know , because , like the image of the Americans blowing up the whole thing , it's not great for the Americans , right ? And there are some people in the administration who , I think , understand that .
Well , I think that will be heartening for the humanitarian wing of the UN which , as you know , is in Geneva . Very last question , really , then . You said earlier that the 90-day basically cease and desist order is a real death sentence for implementing NGOs on the ground . You know how can they cope ?
I don't think the humanitarian community in Geneva should take heart at all .
I mean , I think that this notion that's sort of starting to percolate through my brain is this notion that this is really the end of foreign aid as we know it right , and that Somalia , a couple of years ago , faced with a major famine or the threat of a famine , the Americans stepped in and provided over a billion dollars .
Ethiopia , the tsunami in Southeast Asia , peacekeeping operations I mean I don't really see this administration responding to a coming crisis with a major outlay of cash in the way that we have done historically . So what does that mean ? I mean you know interesting tests will be Haiti . I mean that's an issue where it's fairly local for the US .
It has to do with migration , with refugees . It may be an issue where they will either want to do something themselves to try and you know , make life more livable there , but who knows ? But are they going to do it ? If there's a famine again in Somalia ?
Are you going to see this administration committing a billion dollars , making that kind of contribution , leading the effort on Ebola in West Africa ?
I mean there are certain things that the Americans had a lot of skill with and you know , for all the criticism of , you know , the US engagement , the fact that at the UN they're actually in more than a billion dollars worth of debt On the humanitarian side , they have really they have more than pulled their weight .
And so I mean , if I talk to people at the UN , they've , you know , they've spent the last few years working very , very hard on other wealthy countries to get them to step up their commitments the Gulf states , china , others and I mean China does do a fair bit of stuff , but they tend to do it bilaterally , not through the UN system .
So I think they're in for some very , very hard times . Whether it leads to the , you know , the end of the UN , I don't think so , but you know , you never know .
Colm Lynch , journalist with DevEx , ending our discussion on the challenges ahead for the United Nations . We hope you enjoyed this edition of Inside Geneva and just before we go , here's some news about a new podcast series from Swiss .
Info . Hi , I'm Angela Saini , a science journalist and author . I've written four books exploring humanity's fascination with science as a solution to social problems , and I'm the host of Lost Cells , a thrilling new investigative podcast that will make you question the promises behind private stem cell banking .
This gripping podcast follows the stories of families from Spain , serbia , italy and many other countries as they embark on a global quest to find the one thing they need the most life itself . Will they succeed in their search for the stem cells that they pinned their hopes on ? Tune in to Lost Cells , an original Swiss Info podcast .
To find out , listen on Apple Podcasts , spotify or wherever you get your podcasts .
That sounds pretty interesting . Do join Angela Saini when Lost Cells comes out . And , of course , do join us next time on Inside Geneva . We'll be back with a new episode on Tuesday , February 18th . I'm Imogen Folks , Thanks for listening . A reminder you've been listening to Inside Geneva , a Swiss Info production .
You can email us on insidegeneva at swissinfoch and subscribe to us and review us wherever you get your podcasts . Check out our previous episodes how the International Red Cross unites prisoners of war with their families , or why survivors of human rights violations turn to the UN in Geneva for justice . I'm Imogen Folks . Thanks again for listening .