On U.S. Withdrawal from UN Bodies

The views expressed below are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Carr-Ryan Center for Human Rights or Harvard Kennedy School. These perspectives have been presented to encourage debate on important public policy challenges.

No doubt, the United States of America has worked tirelessly to reshape the liberal global order after the devastating conflicts of the 19th century. The U.S. has played a significant role in giving birth to the United Nations—an institution that serves as a cornerstone for global peace, international diplomacy, and cooperation. The recent decision of the U.S. to withdraw from dozens of international bodies and UN entities is concerning and is causing distress among marginalized communities across the world. The abrupt decision by the White House reflects a structural retreat from global governance. This transition could have devastating effects for marginalized communities that have not only perceived the United States as a leader in safeguarding transnational norms but also a guarantor of human rights, gender equality, climate justice, peacebuilding, and development.

This transition could have devastating effects for marginalized communities that have not only perceived the United States as a leader in safeguarding transnational norms but also a guarantor of human rights, gender equality, climate justice, peacebuilding, and development.

These abandoned institutions contributed crucially in advancing gender-based violence frameworks to recognize violence against transgender and nonconforming genders, which often went unchecked on a regional level. Support varies from the funding of sexual and reproductive programs for LGBTQ individuals on humanitarian grounds to pressurizing the states to align their local law with international human rights standards. The existence of LGBTQ communities in the global south is considered a social taboo and often stigmatized as immoral and a “western agenda”. The absence of international mechanisms in such a situation serves as a catalyst of undignified life where survival and visibility are left to majoritarian politics, religious fundamentalism, and nationalist governance.

The United States is not only a donor and supporter of these rights-focused institutions but also a global norm-setting power that consolidates the legitimacy of the LGBTQ community through affirmative actions. The space should not be handed over to the conservative and authoritative regimes that criminalize, erase, or violently target the social status of marginalized communities. We understand that the U.S. decision was taken in the best interest of its own domestic agenda, but the protection of those already at the margins is the responsibility and international commitment of the U.S. The states in the third world often adopt the shadow of national sovereignty in breaching and withholding the rights of religious minorities, women, and sexual and gender minorities.  They ascribe the foreign threat to their regional culture and exclude them structurally while simultaneously normalizing the systematic disregard of gender-based violence against trans women. When in such a situation international entities like UN Women, the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA),Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), and offices addressing sexual violence, children in conflict, and gender equality roll back from their objectives, the states owe no accountability and scrutiny to international standards and norms. This might be a policy shift for those in power, but it is a sacrifice of LGBTQ identity as collateral damage.

The presence of international institutions is not only for oversight but also a tool of LGBTQ survival, which brings the community recognition, legal protection, identity, and legitimacy.

Taking the example of Pakistan, the LGBTQ community has no legal recognition and protection in Pakistani domestic law and thoroughly relies on transnational standards and guidelines. In case of an illness, their health is heavily dependent on internationally funded programs; for employment, they claim the international standard because of the minimal provision. The presence of international institutions is not only for oversight but also a tool of LGBTQ survival, which brings the community recognition, legal protection, identity, and legitimacy.

As gender experts, it is our duty to point out the drawbacks of the U.S. decision to withdraw from international entities, as it has a tangible effect on the lives of all those whose persecution will further be entrenched and intensified. This decision is a reflection of a political agenda that prioritizes strategically valuable lives over politically disposable ones. The repercussions of this action will be the elimination of safeguards that were already weak, inconsistently enforced, and consistently challenged for LGBTQ+ communities, especially transgender people in Pakistan. Without institutional support, funding, and international scrutiny, their legal recognition and acknowledgment is a symbolic gesture. In such circumstances, withdrawal does create chaos, instability, and regression.