Not even a month has passed since the inauguration, as Donald Trump has actually restored Status Quo Ante of the Oon policy of his first cadence.

His “beloved” Paris Climate Changes (who would doubt the “National Energy Emergency” and the famous “Drill, Baby, Drill”), as well as the “ineffective” World Health Organization, in the first time, in the first time in the first time, fell into the “First Wave”..

And after the predicted first guests of Donald Trump - Benyamin Netanyahu, came the turn of the “second wave” of the Oon institutions that acts “contrary to the interests of the United States, attacking our allies and propagating anti -Semitism”: the Council of Human Rights and the Middle Eastern Agency of the UN to help the Palestinian refugees and organize.

In addition, Trump signed a decree on the introduction of sanctions against the International Criminal Court due to an investigation against Israel and the issuance of an arrest warrant of Netanyahu.

Of course, those who are in the subject will notice that we have already passed all this during the first cadence of Donald Trump, and some may even recall that American presidents regularly fight with the UN over the past half a century. For example, in 2011, Barack Obama stopped funding UNESCO after the Palestinian autonomy became a full member of this organization; In 1996, Bill Clinton led the United States from the United Nations for Industrial Development (Unido) and the World Tourist Organization (Unwto), referring to their \; Ronald Reagan in 1984-from UNESCO after the organization limited Israeli's participation in its activities, and Jimmy Carter, recently departed to eternity, in 1977 from the International Labor Organization (ILO) due to anxiety about its politicization, including.

[see_also ids \u003d "

Everything seems to be so. But, as the hero of the famous play by Mikhail Staritsky said, “For the Box of Zaitsey”: “So! So! Ale Ni!

The current period of US-Oon-Oon relations still has a number of features compared as from Trump 1 time. 0, and with everything that was before.

Features of "

The first is timing.

During the first period of stay in the Oval office, Donald Trump “harnessed” for a long time before making one or another “Oon” decision.

Say, the application for the first exit from the Paris Agreement was made in the fifth month of his presidency (June 1, 2017), from UNESCO - in fact after nine months (October 12, 2017), and the exit from the UN Human Rights Council and the Middle Eastern Agency of the UN to help help.

Now we are witnesses of real “turbo ground” and the passage of all this path by the White House for some half a month.

The second is a pattern of behavior.

Unlike the previous owners of the White House, Trump 1. 0 behaved quite radically in several directions in relation to the UN, while Carter, Reagan or Clinton as an instrument of pressure on this organization chose only one “main” direction.

But at the same time, the then administration of Trump actively cooperated and agreed with different UN institutions, say, with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the World Food Program (WFP) or the UN Children's Fund (Unicef).

[see_also ids \u003d "

Moreover, during the first cadence, the current owner of the White House behaved much more liberal. Say, before leaving the World Health Organization, intensive debates were conducted between the United States and the UN on the reform of the WHO.

Now everything actually is happening without any discussions and exchanges of views, and the head of the UN, say, the general director of the same School of Greberesus, has no choice but the post-fact of “express regret” and hopes to maintain “historical relations” between WHO and USA.

Risk group.

The presidential decree signed by Trump in early February provides for a revision of international organizations receiving US funding within 180 days to determine those that are considered harmful to American interests and evaluate a possible way out of them.

To evaluate the "

If on the internal track this is a deregulation of the economy, the increase in energy production and, accordingly, the rejection of the environmental case, then on the external, obviously, emphasis will be placed in Latin America with its main pain point - the migration theme, the Middle East and, accordingly, the prosile sentiments.

Given this, in the list of “harmful” in the ecological direction, in the near future, it has every chance of getting not only the Paris Agreement, but in general the UN framework for climate change.

[see_also ids \u003d "

On the migration track, obviously, we are waiting for the next exit of the United States from the global migration agreement (at the time of “First Trump” Washington already did this in December 2017), which “contains numerous provisions incompatible with the US policy regarding migrants and refugees”,.

In addition, obviously, the financial argument will be key in contacts with the Office of the UN Supreme Commissioner for Refugees (although voluntary contributions account for almost 80% of the annual income of the organization, the United States and the EU are its main sponsors), primarily by changing politics.

In the Middle Eastern direction, it seems that Washington’s further pressure on the mentioned “anti -Israeli” unrwa will occur, which, incidentally, was financed by the Americans almost a third, and then, after Trump's refusal, the Islamic Bank of Development took up this, in which.

Also, probably, questions will be raised about the further feasibility of Middle Eastern peacekeeping missions, such as the “Lebanese” Unifil and “Syrian” Undof. Especially the first, to which both the Ocean and the south of the Israeli-Liva border are the most complaints due to the significant strengthening of the influence of Hezbollah in the south of Lebanon over the past decade, where, in fact, the mandate of the mission is spreading.

Well, and most importantly - this, of course, is financing the UN in general. If the plans of the 45th President of Trump to reduce US contributions to the UN system are prevented by discrepancies with Congress, now that the Republicans control in Congress as a Senate (51 by 45) and the House of Representatives (219 to 215), the 47th President Trump.

New realities.

Of course, having such a lever as a 22% contribution to the regular budget of the UN, the White House can firmly demand that the reforms of this organization have advantageous for itself. And judging by the logic of the behavior of the new American administration, it obviously will do this in the near future after the specified monitoring of international organizations.

Another question is how far a new team can go in its "

[see_also ids \u003d "

Despite some radical thoughts about Trump as a “UN destroyer”, obviously, there will be no destruction, since it would be very unreasonable to destroy the global platform, with the help of which, primarily through the UN Security Council, you can legally protect their countries..

Therefore, most likely, we will witness already “gained” over the past weeks of the methodology for achieving the result according to the “Canadian-Mexican”, “Colombian” or “Panama” scenarios-a financial lever as an instrument of declination to the purposeful reforms of certain UN bodies in accordance with national.

In this context, of course, the “most vulnerable” UN structures are the greatest interest to us, which at the same time are extremely important for the current interests of Ukraine.

This primarily applies to the migration block, since the Office of the UN Supreme Commissioner for Refugees, as well as the International Migration Organization are one of the main international partners of Ukraine for SPPL support.

Also, a revision of cooperation with WHO, which was 18% financed by the Americans and has already announced a forced significant reduction in expenses due to the exit of the United States from its composition.

It is still difficult to say whether it will touch the assistance programs to Ukraine, since it is now announced only to significantly reduce the costs of travel and stop hiring personnel, with the exception of critically important areas, hold all working meetings online, do not update IT equipment and not to carry out repairs in.

A similar situation may arise with UNESCO, which the United States financed by 22%. And since the mentioned precedent of the termination of financing was already 14 years ago under the presidency of Barack Obama, according to many experts, the organization, this time, will have to turn a number of programs, which can create additional difficulties in promoting our interests in case of our election to the UNESCO Executive Council for the period.

[See_also ids \u003d "

Under these difficult conditions, the preservation of last year's level is more than 2 billion dollars. humanitarian aid (taking into account the further spread of conflicts in the world and, accordingly, the redistribution of this assistance is potentially not in our favor) will be a real success.

The wind of change.

Despite the prophecies of skeptics, the UN, obviously, will not go anywhere. Because she, like that democracy of Winston Churchill, is the worst of all international organizations, except for everyone else.

But the fact that the United Nations will fundamentally change is not in doubt. She really needed it without Trump. And the 47th American president seems to be assigned the role of the “catalyst” of the process.

Whether this active process begins already under the current UN Secretary General Antoniu Gutherresh, who, incidentally, Donald Trump has repeatedly invited to the White House during his first cadence, even though both are adherents of opposite political views?

Or it will unfold “on a wide foot” in subsequent years already under the new secretary secretary, which, incidentally, should be precisely the representative of Latin America and the Caribbean, the very American “backyard”, or, according to the Oon Terminology, Gruulacu?

The main thing for us in this situation is to be able to use this “great restructuring” on time and efficiently with benefits for the country and, accordingly, be “party”, and not “massive” the future world reformation.

[votes id \u003d "