On the mental map of Elise Stefanik, the next US ambassador to the UN, two countries are marked in red, one friend and one enemy: Israel and Iran. The rest, except China or Ukraine, do not seem to figure in the course of the Republican congresswoman from New York, a neocon fervently converted to the MAGA movement and awarded for this with this embassy, of ministerial rank. Stefanik’s agenda will therefore not differ too much from that of her Republican predecessor in office, Nikki Haley. Not even that of the current permanent representative of the United States in the multinational forum, Democrat Linda Thomas-Greenfield. The shielding of Israel – through the veto of any Security Council resolution contrary to its interests – is a dogma of faith for all Administrations, Democratic and Republican. Stefanik’s difference from her predecessors is her belligerent and extreme character when it comes to defending Israel.
Stefanik (Albany, New York, 40 years old) spoke before a Knesset committee in May promoting “unconditional” aid to Israel. The United States, she said, must supply “whatever it needs, when it needs it, without conditions to achieve total victory against evil,” embodied, according to her, in Hamas.
His speech responded to President Joe Biden’s decision, a few days earlier, to stop the delivery of 3,500 bombs to prevent the Israeli military offensive against Gaza from causing an even greater catastrophe in a densely populated environment like Rafah than the enclave’s prolonged humanitarian crisis. . “Total victory will begin when those responsible for the crime are erased from the face of the earth.” [ataque del] October 7,” Stefanik proclaimed in the Israeli Parliament, in a tone similar to that used by the future Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, to refer to Hamas.
In her speech before the Knesset, Stefanik elaborated on her favorite topic: the rise of anti-Semitism in the United States. In the hearing that was held last December in the Education Committee of the House of Representatives, she led the way, viciously attacking against the three rectors of other universities (MIT, Harvard and Pennsylvania) summoned to account for the response of the rectorates to the pro-Palestinian demonstrations on the campuses after the start of the Gaza war.
After concluding that the three rectors put themselves in profile when answering, that they were too lukewarm, the exorcism of Stefanik was such that the president of the University of Pennsylvania resigned almost immediately, and that of Harvard, three weeks later. The pro-Palestinian mobilization that has toured American campuses for months, in which many Jewish students and donors have seen messages of anti-Semitic hate, was one of the main weapons used by the Republicans against the Democrats, and many consider that without Stefanik’s prominence , the debate would not have reached such virulence; In fact, most universities still block access to campuses for fear of a repetition of the protests. Stefanik once again raised the specter before the Knesset, accusing pro-Palestinian activists of “calling for the intifada and genocide” of the Jews.
Their ardor was rewarded with the Defender of Israel award, established by the couple formed by the late Jewish tycoon Sheldon Adelson — a supporter of the political careers of Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu — and Miriam, a major donor to the last campaign. of the republican. Stefanik also boasts of having been part of Netanyahu’s personal entourage during his visit to the US Congress in July, before which he gave a particularly belligerent speech.
The fact that Stefanik considers the UN an anti-Semitic organization – in line with Israel’s repeated attacks on the organization and its top official – does not prevent, according to the new Administration, from playing a role that in theory, and always dependent on the opinion of Trump, will be very similar to the one Haley had, with more modest manners and tone. Her legacy at the UN was littered with headlines: she defended the US withdrawal from the nuclear deal with Iran in 2018, calling it “terrible”; that of the UN Human Rights Council, in protest of the allegedly discriminatory treatment of Israel, and the abandonment of the Paris Agreement in 2017.
This established that countries could not withdraw in the first three years of its entry into force (2016), so when Trump began to make his move to formally leave, Haley was no longer a UN ambassador. He resigned in December 2018, and it took the president eight months to find a replacement, proof of his lack of interest in the UN. During that period, a career diplomat—Haley was not a career diplomat, nor was her replacement, Kelly Knight Craft, a wealthy businesswoman and Republican donor—was in charge of representation.
The reasons for Haley’s resignation were not made public, but George Lopez, professor emeritus of Political Science at the University of Notre Dame, points to a lack of zeal when it comes to defending the policies of the first Trump administration. “As Nikki Haley learned, as an ambassador you can follow the order to vote no in the Security Council, only to be called to the White House to be reprimanded for not doing so forcefully enough or for a minor error of expression in explaining the position of the United States to the press,” explains the academic.
Haley’s brief stint at the UN was a shadow of Trump’s isolationist and disdainful first term foreign policy; but unlike then, when some career officials still served in the Republican Administration, in the second, with the election of hawks for the main positions internationalincluding Stefanik’s, the US’s relationship with the world seems more turbulent. Progressive Jewish groups have described the future ambassador’s speech as “rabid,” an excess of ideological zeal that Haley lacked despite her radicalism. Israel firsta copy of the war cry, America first, that has returned the White House to Trump.
Of Stefanik’s foreseeable role, Lopez, a two-time member of the UN panel of experts for North Korea, says: “I suspect she will have a tough job. His diplomatic and UN experience contributes to this. Also influencing will be the agenda that Trump has set to marginalize the UN from any significant role in resolving various wars, reducing the proliferation of nuclear weapons or mitigating climate change. In addition, the United States will withdraw from several organizations under the UN umbrella, such as the International Health Organization.”
A determining burden will be, for this expert, “Stefanik’s ability to recruit personnel with experience in the functioning of the UN, and especially the Security Council. The State Department’s Office of International Organizational Affairs, which normally sends nonpartisan staff to the UN, could be eliminated under the cuts [que plantean] Trump-Musk-Rubio”, alluding to the dismantling of the State that is planned by the new Department of Government Efficiency led by Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy. Lopez recommends Stefanik “spend the entire month of December on the mission.” [ante la ONU]when the United States will occupy the presidency of the Security Council. There you will be able to observe the intricacies of the position and learn very directly.”
Between Stefanik and Haley there are no notable substantial differences; As a congresswoman, the former has vehemently denounced the Democratic Administration for insufficiently arming Ukraine and Israel, and for supposedly kowtowing to China; He also criticized the hasty withdrawal from Afghanistan. His adulation of Trump, in every possible way, has borne fruit, although the political dimension of his role is largely irrelevant… unless, for the sake of his surrender to Israel, the United States froze his contribution to the UN, the peace missions in progress – it is the country that contributes the most – or gave the definitive finishing touch to the agency for Palestinian refugees (UNRWA, in its English acronym), Israel’s bête noire.
