IIS — Elisabeth Marten and Sara Fouad Almohamadi — September 21, 2018
The Trump administration is set to pull funding worth hundreds of millions of dollars from the UN agency supporting Palestinian refugees.
The United States has announced it will cut all funding to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA). The decision is part of a plan to liquidate as a political issue the refugee status of millions of Palestinians. The US aims to strip many of them of their refugee status and thus end the justification for UNRWA, obliging the Arab countries that host the Palestinians to share the burden and take care of them. Ultimately, the US wants to eliminate the issue of refugee status from negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians.
UNRWA's final budget in 2017 was estimated at $1.14 billion, with a cash deficit amounting to $77 million. The US has, until recently, given it about $355 million a year. Beyond its disastrous impact on the Palestinian people, this reckless US policy will probably see the Arab world asked to compensate for the financial losses caused by UNRWA cuts and substantiate its solidarity with the Palestinians. Gulf states may also face pressure to increase support for UNRWA and Arab nations that have been hosting the refugees for decades.
What is UNRWA and why has demand for its help grown?
UNRWA was created in 1949 to help and protect the rights of Palestine refugees, pending a just and lasting solution to their plight. UNRWA has granted refugee status to persons whose normal place of residence was Palestine during the period 1 June 1946 to 15 May 1948, and who lost both home and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 conflict. Breaking with the normal standards of international humanitarian law, the refugee status is also offered to their descendants.
The agency was launched in 1950 to meet the needs of about 750,000 Palestinian refugees. Today, some 5 million are eligible for UNRWA services: 810,000 in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, 1.3 million in the Gaza Strip, 2.2 million in Jordan, 450,000 in Lebanon and 527,000 in Syria.
UNRWA's Gouraud Camp in Baalbek town, 90km northeast of Beirut, Lebanon. 01/04/1959. Credit: UN
UNRWA faces an increased demand for its services due to the refugees' vulnerability and poverty, as we'll as their growing numbers. Nearly one-third of registered Palestinian refugees live in camps across Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip. The rest live in and around the cities and towns of the host countries, and in the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip.
Why is the Trump administration ending aid to UNRWA?
UNRWA is funded by UN member states, the European Union (which gave nearly $143 million in 2017) and some private donations. 92% of the agency's budget comes from government contributions, including one third from the US. In January the State Department released $60 million for the agency and announced it would withhold another $65 million for future consideration. In August the State Department said the US would no longer fund this irredeemably flawed operation, and criticised other countries for not sharing the funding burden.
The decision is partly motivated by economic concerns. The Trump administration has repeatedly expressed discontent over Americas disproportionate contribution to multilateral bodies and initiatives, such asNATOand UN peacekeeping operations.
However, there is also a broader political dimension. In 2018 senior Trump advisor Jared Kushnertold US officials: It is important to have an honest and sincere effort to disrupt UNRWA. This [agency] perpetuates a status quo, is corrupt, inefficient and doesn't help peace.
According to Kushner, UNRWA has perpetuated the status quo by protecting Palestinians refugee status for 70 years. A 2017 census found that only 175,000 Palestinian refugees or their descendants lived in Lebanon, against the 450,000 officially registered to UNRWA (probably because of marriages and departures). The results also showed that the majority in some camps, like Shatila, we're displaced Syrians and not Palestinian refugees. Moreover, in Lebanon, Palestinian refugees have been prohibited from working in skilled professions and owning property. Officially, Arab governments have followed the PLO (Palestinian Liberation Organization) demands to keep alive the Palestinian issue, by not offering refugees opportunities that would deprive them of their Palestinian identity and the future right to return to their homeland.
But, with its decision, the Trump administration has also decided to punish the Palestinians following the declaration by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas that the US will no longer be a mediator in the peace process due to its 2017 recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Trump and his advisors, especially Jared Kushner, have repeatedly accused the Palestinian leadership of blocking the peace process. The US also shut down the office of the Palestinian representation in Washington after the International Criminal Court decided to open a preliminary information and outreach procedure sparked by a Palestinian request to investigate possible crimes committed by Israel on Palestinian territories.
How will Trump's UNRWA cut affect the Palestinian people and the countries hosting Palestinian refugees?
UNRWA has been very convenient for Arab governments which have been reluctant to support the economic cost of the Palestinian problem. Jordan, for instance, has always faced economic problems and has been severely impacted by the spillover of the Syria conflict since 2011. The country cannot afford to lose UNRWA's support.
More broadly, the host countries (Jordan, Lebanon and Syria) are unlikely to integrate the Palestinians without compensation, possibly from Israel and the international community, as they do not feel responsible for the consequences of the 1948 Arab-Israeli war. They will not make any unilateral efforts without a negotiated and comprehensive regional peace agreement that specifies compensation and reparation mechanisms. Even though Kushner has rightly addressed the exceptionality and incongruity of the Palestinian refugee problem, he has not provided the Arab states with what they view as a just and sustainable solution.
When Kushner claimed that UNRWA doesn't help peace he was addressing the very sensitive issue of the right of return. Israel, worried about its own demography, would never accept a massive Palestinian homecoming under a future peace deal. Even Palestinian leaders, in private, doubt their future state could handle a huge influx of new citizens. Israel often blames UNRWA and the Palestinian leadership for letting Palestinians nurture this hope. Indeed, in the absence of a solution to the Palestine refugee problem, the UN General Assembly has repeatedly extended UNRWA's 1949-defined mandate, most recently extending it until 30 June 2020.
But as UNRWA mentioned in a recent official statement: The responsibility for the protracted nature of the Palestine refugee-hood, the growing number of refugees and the growth in needs, lies squarely with the parties and in the international communitys lack of will or utter inability to bring about a negotiated and peaceful resolution of the conflict between Israel and Palestine. The attempt to make UNRWA somehow responsible for perpetuating the crisis is disingenuous at best.
UNRWA cannot be blamed for the Palestinian refugee issue, as it has never been the cause but rather the symptom of the Israeli-Palestinian stalemate. The agency certainly needs in-depth reforms to accommodate the current Palestinian reality. These should cover a re-examination of the basis for granting registration and a framework for more effective and efficient services (the UN itself has found UNRWA vulnerable to misappropriation, graft and corruption). But the core problem of the agency's existence will not be resolved until Israel and the Arab States negotiate a comprehensive peace agreement.
How will Trump's UNRWA cut affect the Arab world, especially the Gulf states?
Other state donors will have to compensate for the loss caused by US withdrawal. None of the Arab states are interested in abandoning UNRWA. The agency provides millions of Palestinians with education, health care, social services, infrastructure, and help during emergencies such as conflict in Gaza and the war in Syria. Arab states, especially the Gulf states are left with almost no choice but to fill that funding vacuum, which is exactly the result the US has been looking for.
Therefore, the first consequence is a financial one. In April the UAE announced a $50 million contribution and an extra $15 million for the upcoming school year. At the same time, Saudi Arabia and Qatar promised to donate $50 million. In February Kuwait announced a $900,000 donation to the agency's Syria Regional Crisis Appeal, and in March an annual aid contribution of $2,000,000.
Saeb Erekat, Head of the PLO Executive Committee, has said: They [The United States] want to terminate the role of UNRWA by proposing direct aid to the countries hosting the Palestinian refugees and sideline the UN agency. The US has indeed proposed a direct wiring of donations to the host countries, without specifying the amounts or mechanisms, including a system for repartition between the different countries.
Would the US provide money directly to the Syrian government they are in conflict with, or to the Hamas Government, which is recognised as a terrorist organisation — but which controls the territory of Gaza, where a million people are dependent on support from UNRWA and other humanitarian agencies? The answer is no. Would they impose conditions on the aid to Lebanon and Jordan, such as downsizing the number of Palestinian refugees? Probably.
If the US succeeds in delegitimising UNRWA, there will be serious consequences for the region. Someone will have to fund help for thousands of people who would otherwise be deprived of it. This load will likely rest on the European Union and the Gulf States. Neither Lebanon nor Jordan have the economic and financial capacity, infrastructure or social climate to do the job that UNRWA was doing. After 70 years with little or no integration of their Palestinian population, and a seven year influx of hundreds of thousands of Syrian refugees, an abrupt reset of the Palestinian refugee issue is likely to cause a humanitarian crisis and inter-community violence.
Moreover, the US decision is likely to fuel greater resentment if it's followed by further attempts to undermine Arab states' credibility on the Palestinian issue. Since the beginning of his presidency, Donald Trump and his so-called peace team have claimed to be aiming to negotiate a comprehensive peace plan — an ultimate deal that could be endorsed by Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt.
But in reality they have mostly sought to punish the Palestinians, and paid no attention to Arab allies' demands not to recognise Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. At a recent UN Security Council meeting US ambassador Nikki Haley said that the Palestinians' Arab neighbours and their allies we're generous with their words, but complained that those words would not do not feed, clothe, or educate a single Palestinian child. UAE Ambassador to the UN Lana Nusseibeh responded: With our total donation of more than $125 million just last year, we believe that we are doing our part to address the immediate needs of the Palestinians.
Donald Trump, Jared Kushner and Benyamin Netanyahu. Credit: Israel MFA
The obvious pro-Israel stance of the US administration has even led it to publicly attack its Arab allies. This aggressive and somewhat insulting attitude is likely to affect the already limited appetite of the Arab countries to support the US peace plan. King Salman of Saudi Arabia has already shown he understands the potential backlash from the Arab public opinion, rapidly rebalancing his son Mohammad Bin Salman's warmer tone toward Israel.
In April King Salman announced a donation of $150 million to the Palestinian Islamic Waqf Programme in Jerusalem. He also stressed that a peace plan must include East Jerusalem as the Palestinian capital, closing the door to speculation on a reset of Saudi Palestine policy. The US administration has perhaps placed too much hope in Mohammed Bin Salman, as the King seems to be the person who decides Riyadh's Palestine policy. And he has not — so far — shown any intention to sell out Jerusalem and the Palestinians.
How have Gulf states handled the Palestinian refugee issue up to now?
Saudi Arabia has always been concerned with the Palestinian refugee issue, defending the Palestinians' right to return or to be compensated, and in 2002 sponsored the Arab Peace Initiative proposing a comprehensive solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict. At an Arab League meeting this month Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al Jubeir said: the Palestinian cause is the top priority and concern of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, which seeks to achieve the legitimate rights of the Palestinians. At the meeting Arab ministers said they regretted Washington's decision to suspend funding to UNRWA and expressed concerns regarding its humanitarian consequences.
Three GCC member states, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates and Kuwait, are among the top 20 UNRWA donors. According to their 2017 pledges, Saudi Arabia donated $53 million, the UAE almost $13 million and Kuwait $9 million (mainly in support of Palestine refugees in Syria). Qatar gave $1 million and Oman donated about $668,000.
Gulf private or state-funded foundations have also donated. These include the Kuwaiti Fund for Arab Economic Development ($4.89 million), Dubai Cares ($3.84 million), the Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan Foundation ($1.5 million), Kuwait Patients Helping fund ($200,000), and the Royal Charity of Bahrain ($13,660).
How does Trump's UNRWA cut affect the regional balance of power?
Competition to fill the gap left by the US may fuel greater tension and bipolarization in the region. Saudi Arabia and Qatar are already competing to show their solidarity with the Palestinians. So far, the two governments have pursued diverging strategies of influence, fuelling inter-Palestinian division.
Saudi Arabia has supported the Fatah political movement, mainly by offering monthly contributions to the Palestinian Authority. They recently announced the transfer of $80 million (at a rate of $20 million a month between April and July 2018). Qatar has been playing a central role in the reconstruction efforts in Gaza since the 2014 war, and has mostly supported the Hamas government and Gazan civil society. In 2016, for example, it pledged a one-time payment of $31 million to cover the pay of 23,800 civil servants. In 2017, an electricity crisis that has caused protests in the Gaza Strip was eased after Qatar donated $12 million to buy fuel. In February Mohammed al Emadi, Qatari Envoy for Gaza Reconstruction, pledged $9 million for fuel, food and medicines.
Competition between Saudi Arabia and Iran has also reached unprecedented levels in recent years, and both rivals have claimed to champion the Palestinian cause. Saudi Arabia has historically provided the Palestinians with more aid than Iran, and the Islamic Republic has exacerbated inter-Palestinian tensions by supporting and arming Hamas in Gaza. But it has also expertly nurtured anti-Saudi feelings by supporting conspiracy theories on an Israeli-Saudi alliance against Iran and the Palestinians. The Palestinian issue remains central to the regional battle for influence.
Author
Elisabeth Marteu
Associate Fellow, Middle East Research Programme
About Elisabeth