Who Is Responsible: The Donor or the Recipient of Aid?

Sweden has decided to terminate its support for the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA). Their aid to Gaza will henceforth be channeled through the country’s development cooperation agency, Sida. Additionally, support will be provided via the UN World Food Programme (WFP), the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), the United Nations Children's Fund (Unicef), and the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC).

This decision is likely a consequence of the fact that UNRWA’s operations have proven to support terrorism and are riddled with corruption. Therefore, the entire organization should be dismantled, or at the very least, all Western countries should follow Sweden’s example and cease financial support.

Finland, however, has resumed its support for UNRWA after a brief hiatus. According to the responsible minister, Ville Tavio (Finns Party), ten percent of the granted aid must be allocated to combating misuse of funds.

Everyone should ask themselves whether this is a sustainable use of emergency aid funded by taxpayers. Or would it be better to halt all payments and redirect the funds to organizations that understand on their own that grants are not intended for corruption?

As for my stance, I declare that there is no reason to assist Palestinians through UNRWA or by any other means until it is guaranteed that the aid reaches its intended purpose. And the responsibility for demonstrating this does not lie with the donor but with the recipient. 

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Two out of three Palestinians support October 7 attack
United Nations, corruption and terrorism
Change of immigration policy and development cooperation

United Nations, corruption and terrorism

In Finland, a new president will be elected tomorrow, Sunday. One of the candidates, Sari Essayah of the Christian Democrats, stated in the final election debate that UN organizations are corrupt.

This statement shouldn't have caused much attention, as the corruption within the UN is considered a public secret – known to anyone who follows international affairs even remotely. However, addressing it more forcefully would lead to a crisis for the entire organization, so it is allowed to persist.

The presidential candidate's perspective emerged in the context of discussing development cooperation through the UN and the influence it provides in the third world. Finland is reducing the financial flows it contributes to this, which has sparked opposition, especially among those whose income and lifestyle depend on this activity.

In this regard, it was unpleasant to discover that deep-seated corruption is not the UN's only significant problem. This realization comes as it has been revealed that some of the organization's employees have even participated in terrorist activities and subsequently been dismissed from their positions.

I am referring, of course, to the news that UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres is horrified by the accusations, and there is now an urgent and comprehensive independent audit of UNRWA to verify its credibility. Having followed the actions of the UN for decades, I am not surprised by this development, and I have no doubt about the validity of the accusations.

However, it is good that the issue has now come to light, as it provides hope for change within the organization. Such change, though, requires the major funding states – namely the USA and other Western countries – to act decisively in this matter. If this happens, there may be renewed hope that the UN will one day become a useful organization.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Christmas gift to the Holy Land
Defense Minister Prabowo Subianto aligned Indonesia on the wrong side of world history
Most useless organisations of our time