Credit: UN Photo/Loey Felipe

By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, May 1 2026 (IPS)

A longstanding rule bars international civil servants from publicly taking a political stand against member states, even against those accused of human rights violations, war crimes and genocide (and even barring staffers from participating in political demonstrations outside the UN).

And more importantly, the rules also forbid UN staffers from campaigning for– or against– candidates for secretary general, including the current race for a new UNSG.

Perhaps that’s a price one has to pay—forfeiting the right to political expression– when you are an international civil servant. But is it worth the sacrifice?

A new circular to UN staffers, released April 29, reiterates these restrictions cautioning against any participation in the run-up to the election of a new Secretary-General later this year.

“As recent and ongoing wars and conflicts continue, the UN remains indispensable as a platform for dialogue, human rights, and collective action and all staff play a vital role in this effort.

While it is understandable that many staff members feel compelled to share views about events that are unfolding, including in personal fora such as social media, we must be mindful at all times of our rights and duties as international civil servants, which require us to act independently and impartially,” says the circular.

Four candidates in the running for the next UN Secretary-General; Michelle Bachelet (Chile), Rafael Grossi (Argentina), Rebeca Grynspan (Costa Rica), and Macky Sall (Senegal). Credit: United Nations

This applies to all public communications (including those shared through personal social media accounts) related to ongoing crises, political matters, and other elections and electoral processes, which should be framed in a manner that is consistent with the Organization’s positions and the statements of the Secretary-General.

Recent instances have also highlighted the need for particular caution with regard to public expressions of support for candidates in the selection process for the Secretary-General.

“Any such expressions—whether explicit or implicit—may be perceived as inconsistent with the independence and impartiality required of international civil servants and risk undermining the integrity of the process”, the circular cautions.

‘Disclaimers indicating that views are expressed in a personal capacity do not absolve us of our obligations under the Staff Regulations and Rules. The standards of conduct apply irrespective of the platform used or the capacity in which views are expressed,” the circular warns.

Dr Palitha Kohona, a former Chief of the UN Treaty Section, told Inter Press Service (IPS):
“It is undoubted that international civil servants must remain above national and sectarian differences. It is this quality that makes them and the Organization credible. Sometimes it may become difficult to remain silent in the face of gross abuses, and these circumstances present a dilemma”.

In this context, he pointed out, it is most important to bear in mind Article 101 of the Charter.

During the time of SG Kofi Annan (1997-2006), a more relaxed atmosphere prevailed and staff were permitted to express their views within their own areas of responsibility.

“Then again, one is constrained to ask whether staff should remain mute when the very fundamentals of the Charter are being violated. Whether they be human rights, or the prohibition or the threat of the use of force, or the commitment to live in peace and harmony,” he argued.

The leadership of the Organization must provide the guidelines within which the staff could express themselves. But not the wishy-washy stuff that we are increasingly getting used to.

But will the leadership ever call a spade a spade, declared Dr Kohona, a former Sri Lankan Permanent Representative to the UN, and until recently, Ambassador to China.

Samir Sanbar, a former Assistant Secretary-General and head of the Department of Public Information (DPI) told IPS: “I recall taking an “Oath of Office”‘ to “exercise in all loyalty, discretion and conscience the functions entrusted to me as an international civil servant of the United Nations, to discharge these functions and regulate my conduct with the interests of the united Nations only in view. and not to seek or accept instructions in regard to the performance of my duties from any government or other authority external to the Organization”.

I am not clear, he said, whether that oath is currently required particularly after several former government officials joined the Secretariat.

Supporting a particular candidate proposed by a government –as officially required– for the post of Secretary General would be contrary to that oath of international civil service, he pointed out.

Recounting his strong personal relationship with a former Secretary-General, Sanbar said: “Kofi Annan was my closest United Nations colleague as we started our work at the same time and progressed together when he headed Peace keeping and I headed Public Information.”

He visited me at home on a Sunday evening, said Sanbar, to inform me of his candidacy for Secretary-General yet graciously agreed that my contacts with the media would not indicate public support until he was elected when we walked to the photo unit on the eighth floor for an official portrait.

Meanwhile, the UN circular also says : “We, as staff members must adhere to the policies set out in the Status, basic rights and duties of United Nations staff members; outside activities. The guidelines for the personal use of social media also include a number of useful tips including on privacy settings, liking or sharing posts, and reminders on information that has not been made public.’

In particular, staff regulation 1.2 (f) provides: “While staff members’ personal views and convictions, including their political and religious convictions, remain inviolable, staff members shall ensure that those views and convictions do not adversely affect their official duties or the interests of the United Nations.

They shall conduct themselves at all times in a manner befitting their status as international civil servants and shall not engage in any activity that is incompatible with the proper discharge of their duties with the United Nations.

They shall avoid any action and, in particular, any kind of public pronouncement that may adversely reflect on their status, or on the integrity, independence and impartiality that are required by that status.”

The “2026 Guidance on Political Activities” issued on iSeek by the UN Ethics Office provides more guidance.

“We, as staff members, are obliged to comply with these provisions. Failure to do so can result in the initiation of a disciplinary process, which may result in disciplinary sanctions being imposed.”

Given the above, please also be aware, in accordance with staff rule 10.1 “Failure by staff members to comply with their obligations under the Charter of the United Nations, the Staff Regulations and Rules or other relevant administrative issuances or to observe the standards of conduct expected of an international civil servant may amount to misconduct and may lead to the institution of a disciplinary process and the imposition of disciplinary measures for misconduct.”

In addition, affiliate (non-staff) personnel must also comply with the principles set out under the terms and conditions of their engagement as well as the administrative instructions that govern their modality of engagement such as ST/AI/2020/10 on United Nations Internship Programme, ST/AI/2013/4 on Consultants and Individual Contractors, ST/AI/231/Rev.1 on Non-Reimbursable Loan Experts, ST/AI/1999/6 on Gratis Personnel, and the MOU and Conditions of Service guidelines for UN Volunteers.

“This reminder is issued in the interest of protecting both individual staff members and the Organization, and to ensure that the United Nations continues to be perceived as an impartial and trusted institution by Member States and the public”.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Photos of former Secretaries-Generals in the UN’s public lobby.

By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Apr 28 2026 (IPS)

The race for the next UN Secretary-General has, so far, attracted only four candidates—perhaps with more to come in an unpredictable contest.

But most of the candidates have played it safe – avoiding controversial issues and circumventing the wrath of the US whose veto can demolish the chances of any candidate by a single stroke in the Security Council.

The Trump administration has taken a vociferous stand against some the longstanding basic principles and goals advocated by the UN, including combating climate change, promoting gender empowerment and supporting equity and diversity in the world body.

“This ‘climate change,’ it’s the greatest con job ever perpetrated on the world, in my opinion,” Trump was quoted as saying.

“All of these predictions made by the United Nations and many others, often for bad reasons, were wrong. They were made by stupid people that have cost their countries fortunes and given those same countries no chance for success. If you don’t get away from this green scam, your country is going to fail.”

Trump has also initiated a comprehensive, government-wide rollback of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs, signing executive orders in January and March 2026 to eliminate DEI offices, initiatives, and training in federal agencies and among contractors.

The policy emphasizes “merit-based” opportunities over DEI and gender empowerment goals, restricting federal funding in the US for, and requiring contractors to stop, “racially discriminatory” DEI activities.

Who, amongst the candidates, will publicly stand on these issues, defying the US?

As of last week, the four candidates vying to succeed António Guterres as the next UN Secretary-General, starting January 1, 2027 were:—Michelle Bachelet (Chile), Rafael Grossi (Argentina), Rebeca Grynspan (Costa Rica), and Macky Sall (Senegal).

Mandeep S. Tiwana, Secretary General CIVICUS, an alliance of civil society organizations, told Inter Press Service (IPS) the United Nations was born out of the horrors of the Second World War, which witnessed cruelty and human rights violations on a monumental scale.

“It is telling that the candidates’ vision skirted addressing impunity for genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity, the very violations that are weakening the promise of the United Nations today.”

Most candidates, he pointed out, come with years of experience within the system. But experience within a broken system is not the same as the capacity to repair it.

“What the world needs is not another politician or diplomat driven by pragmatism alone, but a leader with a moral vision grounded in a human rights framework, one willing to confront eye-watering inequality, the rise of misogyny, environmental degradation, and the normalization of might-is-right conduct in international affairs”, he said.

“Almost all presentations were made under the long shadow of a possible veto, a reality that shapes what candidates say and, more importantly, what they do not”.

Civil society has been actively calling for straw polls to be held at the General Assembly, giving member states beyond the Permanent P5 and the Elected E10 a formal opportunity to indicate their candidate preference.

That effort has not succeeded, he lamented, whether through a General Assembly resolution or any other mechanism, and that failure is its own indictment of how the selection process is structured.

People across the world need a leader who can drive change through their moral authority and serve as the conscience of the world. At this stage, each of the candidates could have done more to demonstrate that they possess the courage and conviction required to do that. said Tiwana.

Instead, they appeared to play to the gallery of powerful states when they could have been speaking to the people who need a functioning and relevant United Nations in the second quarter of the twenty-first century” declared Tiwana.

Ian G Williams, a longtime commentator covering the UN since 1989 and currently President of the Foreign Press Association (FPA), told IPS, so far, it’s a very uninspiring and, dare one say, “mature” field.

Maybe there should be as much pressure for “youth’s” turn, as there is for a woman, not least since both female candidates are of pensionable age. The “most difficult job in the world” is not one for Donald Trump’s contemporaries!

The hustings had four announced candidates, but as the Book of Proverbs says, “Where there is no vision, the people perish: but he that keepeth the law, happy is he.”

“None of the candidates offered a vision: their presentations had all the breadth and depth of an application for deputy head of corporate Human Resources,” said Williams, who covered four previous SG elections– BBG, Kofi, Ban and Guterres.

Even the candidates who showed signs of integrity, keeping the law, seem to be missing the vision thing and, frankly, keeping the law is a stretch for candidates who want to avoid a veto from the P5, he pointed out.

“So, in a field of lame horses, the three-legged one might limp home, and that could be Mackie Sall, who is not a woman, not Latin American and does not have the support of his own country or region. His big benefit is that he passes the traditional UN promotion test of not being remembered for anything in particular.”

In an in-depth analysis, Williams said Bachelet has the credentials, but for obvious reasons camouflaged her vision while Rebecca Grynspan is an uninspiring apparatchik who has presided over the effectual dismantlement of UNCTAD, the development agency that had been in the sights of Washington for decades.

While one cannot hold family connections against her, many countries might also worry about the optics of an SG whose sister is an Israeli settler in the West Bank. However, she is backed by her government unlike some other candidates.

Indeed, it could be a plus for Bachelet that Chile’s new reactionary government pulled its endorsement, just as the Argentine Grossi’s backing by Millei, and thus implicitly by Trump, is not exactly a vote winner.

Looking at the heavily handicapped slate so far, said Williams, it’s good that there are nominations waiting in the wings.

Barbadian PM Mia Amor Mottley would be an ideal candidate – ticking both the vision and law boxes. A woman from the Latin American and Caribbean region, (whose ”turn” it is for the position) and whose otherwise disqualifying integrity might pass the Trump test by speaking English and being accoladed by no less that the American Enterprise Institute! However, she has just won re-election in her homeland.

Another candidate who is reportedly waiting to declare, said Williams, is Ecuador’s María Fernanda Espinosa, former GA President, who is missing support from her own government, but has other supporters, is young, a woman and a Latin American and who has shown both vision and integrity.

However, he pointed out, the odds are against anyone desirable surviving the vetting and vetoing from this US administration, and they would be unlikely to survive scrutiny by Moscow or Beijing, Russia and China, pay lip service to the international order, and might be prepared to sacrifice their immediate prejudices for the greater good.

Overall, the question is whether the UN is redeemable without finding a way to bypass the veto. At one time the US realized the advantages of maintaining the UN as thin blue fig leaf for its actual hegemony, but it no longer sees the need to cover its rampant MAGAhood, declared Williams.

A list of former UN Secretaries-Generals follows:

• Ban Ki-moon (Republic of Korea) who served from January 2007 to December 2016;
• Kofi Annan (Ghana) who held office from January 1997 to December 2006;
• Boutros Boutros-Ghali (Egypt), who held office from January 1992 to December 1996;
• Javier Pèrez de Cuèllar (Peru), who served from January 1982 to December 1991;
• Kurt Waldheim (Austria), who held office from January 1972 to December 1981;
• U Thant (Burma, now Myanmar), who served from November 1961, when he was appointed acting Secretary-General (he was formally appointed Secretary-General in November 1962) to December 1971;
• Dag Hammarskjöld (Sweden), who served from April 1953 until his death in a plane crash in Africa in September 1961; and
• Trygve Lie (Norway), who held office from February 1946 to his resignation in November 1952.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

North Korea’s ballistic missile. Credit: Wikipedia

By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Apr 21 2026 (IPS)

The ongoing military conflicts in the Middle East—involving the US, Israel, Palestine, Iran and Lebanon—have indirectly bolstered North Korea’s plans to expand its nuclear arsenal.

North Korean leader Kim Jong-un is quoted as saying the American attacks on Iran justified his decision to strengthen his military power and would eventually make his country safe in a world shaped by President Trump’s foreign policy.

The headline in a New York Times article last week read: “North Korea Tests New Weapons, Drawing Lessons from War in the Middle East”.

Among the weapons tested were missiles carrying cluster munition and graphite bomb payloads, much like weapons that have appeared in the Middle East, the Times said.

The testing signals that North Korea is trying to learn from the Middle East war.

Responding to President Trump’s interest in meeting with him, the North Korean leader has said he would agree to a meeting, only if the US formally recognizes his country as a nuclear power—and argued that leaders of Iraq and Libya would have survived US attacks if they possessed a nuclear deterrent.

“I don’t see any reason not to get along well with the United States if it withdraws its hostile policy towards us and respects our current (nuclear) status”, he said in a speech last February.

Trump met with the North Korean leader three times during his first term in office (2017–2021), including summits in Singapore (June 2018) and Hanoi (February 2019), followed by a brief meeting at the DMZ (June 2019), where Trump became the first sitting U.S. president to enter North Korea.

Meanwhile, the Washington-based Stimson Center points out that despite stringent international economic sanctions imposed primarily through the UN Security Council, North Korea’s progress in nuclear and missile development as well as in its nuclear doctrine has been remarkable, particularly since negotiations with the Trump administration stalled in 2018-19.

North Korea’s position that denuclearization is non-negotiable was again emphasized at their most recent Party Congress held in February 2026.

Dr M.V. Ramana, Professor and Simons Chair in Disarmament, Global and Human Security, Director pro tem, School of Public Policy and Global Affairs at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, told Inter Press Service the attacks by the United States and Israel on Iran are unprovoked and further add to the incentive for countries to acquire nuclear weapons.

“There is no way to be sure that such acquisition would shield such countries under all circumstances, especially when military powers like the United States act with such belligerence”.

But rather than go down that direction, he pointed out, “our efforts should be focused on ensuring that countries do not resort to military violence and attacking other countries, and differences are settled through peaceful and diplomatic means.

While the current leaderships in many countries might not be inclined to act in such ways, it is up to civil society and social movements to help steer governments in a more peaceful direction, declared Dr Ramana.

North Korea has made “very serious” progress in its ability to produce more nuclear weapons, the head of the UN’s nuclear watchdog has said, in another sign that the regime is seeking to use its nuclear arsenal to ensure its survival, according to the London Guardian.

North Korea is thought to have assembled about 50 nuclear warheads, although some experts are skeptical of its claims that it is able to miniaturize them so they can be attached to long-range ballistic missiles.

Speaking during a visit to Seoul, Rafael Grossi, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), confirmed reports of a rapid rise in activity at North Korea’s main nuclear complex, Yongbyon.

Grossi said work had intensified at Yongbyon’s 5MW reactor, reprocessing unit, light water reactor and other facilities, and the country was believed to possess several dozen nuclear warheads.

In an interview with IPS, Alice Slater, who serves on the Boards of World Beyond War and the Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space and is also a UN NGO Representative for the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, told IPS “once again, North Korea is being singled out as a rogue state for complaining that its plans to strengthen its military capacity is justified given the US destruction of Iraq and Libya which never made any effort to go nuclear as North Korea did.”

It was widely unreported, she said, that North Korea was the only nuclear country to support a vote in 2016 at the UN First Committee that authorized negotiations to go forward on a treaty to ban nuclear weapons which resulted in the 2017 adoption of the Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.

Every single nuclear state as well as the states sheltering under the US nuclear umbrella, she pointed out, boycotted the meeting (except the Netherlands which was ordered to attend the UN meeting by a vote of its Parliament).

Which ones were the real rogue states? she asked.

While the news, dominated by what has been described by Ray McGovern founder of Veterans Intelligence Professions for Sanity as part of the MICIMATT (the Military Industrial Congressional Intelligence Media Academic Think Tank complex), is now trumpeting the new nuclear dangers and the frightening prospects of potential proliferation of nuclear weapons to additional nations, no attention is being paid to the opportunities to put a halt to the burgeoning nuclear arms race and the US race to weaponize space, characterized most recently by US plans for a “Golden Dome” estimated to cost 1.5 billion over the next years.

“There is a clear connection,” said Slater, “between maintaining space for peace and the willingness of Russia and China to negotiate for nuclear disarmament, going back to the time when Gorbachev proposed to Reagan that the US and Russia eliminate their nuclear arsenals provided the US gave up its plans to dominate and control space in its Vision 2020 document.”

While Reagan liked the idea of nuclear abolition, he refused to give up his Star Wars plans. Russia and China tabled a draft treaty in the consensus-bound UN Committee in Geneva in 2014 and 2018 which the US blocked, refusing to allow any discussion.

This past May 2025, on the 80th Anniversary of WWII, they issued a stunning proposal calling for global cooperation, supporting the “central coordinating role of the UN” and asking for a number of steps that could increase “strategic stability”

In particular, they criticized the US Golden Dome program, urging the need for the early launch of negotiations to conclude a legally binding multilateral instrument based on their draft treaty on the prevention of weapons and the use of force in outer space. They even pledged to promote an international commitment “not to be the first to deploy weapons in outer space”.

“Were the peace and arms control movements in the world to take up this extraordinary call and opportunity to reverse the disastrous course we appear to be plummeting towards—and demand that our governments enter negotiations on a treaty to guarantee that we will maintain a weapons and war free environment in space, there is little doubt that a new path will also be opened to finally ban the bomb”.

Time to give peace a chance, declared Slater.

Meanwhile, States Parties to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) will be meeting at the United Nations for the 2026 NPT Review Conference April 27-May 22.

The Review Conference comes at a time of increased nuclear threats arising from armed conflicts involving nuclear armed States, in particular the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the US/Israel invasion of Iran.

“This will make the deliberations and negotiations in New York very difficult, but also extremely important”, according to Parliamentarians for Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament (PNND).

The PNND says it will be actively involved in the Review Conference – in conjunction with activities in parliaments around the world – to support the NPT by advancing nuclear risk-reduction, nuclear arms control, common security and the global elimination of nuclear weapons.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

The Leader of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), Yasser Arafat, arrived at UN Headquarters by helicopter. A view of the helicopter, as it approached the North Lawn of the UN campus, on 13 November 1974. But Arafat was denied a US visa for a second visit to the UN in 1988, to address the General Assembly. Credit: UN Photo/Michos Tzovaras

By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Apr 15 2026 (IPS)

The United Nations faces two crucial elections later this year: the election of a new Secretary General, with no confirmed date for polling, and the election of a new President (PGA), scheduled for June 2, for the upcoming 81st session of the General Assembly.

In accordance with established geographical rotation, the president for the next session will be elected from the Asia-Pacific Group with two candidates in the running: Dr. Khalilur Rahman of Bangladesh, currently serving as Foreign Minister, and Andreas S. Kakouris, Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Cyprus. A third declared candidate, Riyad Mansour (Palestine), withdrew from the race.

The dual candidacy breaks a longstanding tradition of a single candidate running for the office of PGA from each geographical group.

According to one of the established rules, speeches before the General Assembly were limited to 15 minutes– but rarely enforced.

The longest speech –269 minutes–was credited to Fidel Castro of Cuba at a meeting of the General Assembly on 26 September 1960. But the longest speech ever made at the UN was by V.K. Krishna Menon of India. His statement to the Security Council was given during three meetings on 23 and 24 January 1957 and lasted more than 8 hours.

In a bygone era, the General Assembly was also the center of several politically memorable events in the history of the world body.

When Yasser Arafat was denied a US visa to visit New York to address the United Nations back in 1988, the General Assembly defied the United States by temporarily moving the UN’s highest policy making body to Geneva– perhaps for the first time in UN history– providing a less-hostile political environment and a platform, for the leader of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO).

Arafat, who first addressed the UN in 1974, took a swipe at Washington when he prefaced his statement in Geneva by remarking: “it never occurred to me that my second meeting with this honorable Assembly, since 1974, would take place in the hospitable city of Geneva”.

On his 1974 visit to address the General Assembly, he avoided the hundreds of pro and anti-Arafat demonstrators outside the UN building by arriving in a helicopter which landed on the North Lawn of the UN campus adjoining the East River.

When he addressed the General Assembly, there were confusing reports whether or not Arafat carried a gun in his holster—“in a house of peace” — which was apparently not visible to delegates.

One news story said Arafat was seen “wearing his gun belt and holster and reluctantly removing his pistol before mounting the rostrum.” “Today, I have come bearing an olive branch and a freedom-fighter’s gun. Do not let the olive branch fall from my hand,” he told the Assembly.

Setting the record straight, Samir Sanbar, a former UN Assistant Secretary-General and head of the former Department of Public Information told Inter Press Service (IPS) it was discreetly agreed that Arafat would keep the holster while the gun was to be handed over to Abdelaziz Bouteflika, then Foreign Minister and later President of Algeria (1999-2019).

Incidentally, when anti-Arafat New York protesters on First Avenue shouted: “Arafat Go Home”, his supporters responded that was precisely what he wanted—a home for the Palestinians to go to.

Although Arafat made it to the UN, some of the world’s most controversial leaders, including Iraq’s Saddam Hussein, Syria’s Hafez al-Assad and his son Bashar al-Assad, and North Korea’s Kim il Sung and his grandson Kim Jong-un never made it to the UN to address the General Assembly.

Ernesto “Che” Guevara, Minister of Industries of Cuba, addresses the General Assembly on Dec. 11, 1964. Credit: UN Photo/TC

Meanwhile, when the politically-charismatic Ernesto Che Guevara, once second-in-command to Cuban leader Fidel Castro, was at the UN to address the General Assembly sessions, back in 1964, the U.N. headquarters came under attack – literally. The speech by the Argentine-born Marxist revolutionary was momentarily drowned by the sound of an explosion.

The anti-Castro forces in the United States, reportedly backed by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), had mounted an insidious campaign to stop Che Guevara from speaking. A 3.5-inch bazooka was fired at the 39-storeyed Secretariat building by the East River while a vociferous CIA-inspired anti-Castro, anti-Che Guevara demonstration was taking place outside the U.N. building on New York’s First Avenue and 42nd street.

But the rocket launcher – which was apparently not as sophisticated as today’s shoulder-fired missiles and rocket-propelled grenades – missed its target, rattled windows, and fell into the river about 200 yards from the building. One newspaper report described it as “one of the wildest episodes since the United Nations moved into its East River headquarters in 1952.”

As longtime U.N. staffers would recall, the failed 1964 bombing of the U.N. building took place when Che Guevara launched a blistering attack on U.S. foreign policy and denounced a proposed de-nuclearization pact for the Western hemisphere. It was one of the first known politically motivated terrorist attacks on the United Nations.

After his Assembly speech, Che Guevara was asked about the attack aimed at him. “The explosion has given the whole thing more flavor,” he joked, as he chomped on his Cuban cigar.

When he was told by a reporter that the New York City police had nabbed a woman, described as an anti-Castro Cuban exile, who had pulled out a hunting knife and jumped over the UN wall, intending to kill him, Che Guevara said: “It is better to be killed by a woman with a knife than by a man with a gun.”

Meanwhile, in 2004, when the Organization of African Unity (OAU), the predecessor to the present African Union (AU), barred coup leaders from participating in African summits, Secretary-General Kofi Annan singled out the OAU decision as a future model to punish military dictators worldwide.

Annan went one step further and said he was hopeful that one day the General Assembly would follow in the footsteps of the OAU and bar leaders of military governments from addressing the General Assembly.

Annan’s proposal was a historic first. But it never came to pass in an institution where member states, not the Secretary-General, reign supreme.

The outspoken Annan, a national of Ghana, also said that “billions of dollars of public funds continue to be stashed away by some African leaders — even while roads are crumbling, health systems are failing, school children have neither books nor desks nor teachers, and phones do not work.” He also lashed out at African leaders who overthrow democratic regimes to grab power by military means.

Meanwhile, some of the military leaders who addressed the UN included Fidel Castro of Cuba, Col Muammar el-Qaddafi of Libya, Amadou Toure of Mali (who assumed power following a coup in 1991 but later served as a democratically elected President), and Jerry Rawlings of Ghana (who seized power in 1979, executed former heads of state but later served as a civilian president voted into power in democratic elections). As the International Herald Tribune reported, Rawlings was “Africa’s first former military leader to allow the voters to choose his successor in a multi-party election”.

In October 2020, the New York Times reported that at least 10 African civilian leaders refused to step down from power and instead changed their constitutions to serve a third or fourth term – or serve for life.

These leaders included Presidents of Guinea (running for a third term), Cote d’Ivoire, Uganda, Benin, Burkina Faso, Central African Republic, Ghana and Seychelles, among others. The only country where the incumbent was stepping down was Niger.

Condemning all military coups, the Times quoted Umaro Sissoco Embalo, the president of Guinea-Bissau, as saying: “Third terms also count as coups”

Back in 1977, a separatist activist/lawyer from London, Krishna Vaikunthavsan, who was campaigning for a separate Tamil state in Sri Lanka, surreptitiously gate-crashed into the UN, and virtually hijacked the General Assembly when he walked to the GA podium ahead of Sri Lanka’s Foreign Minister ACS Hameed, the listed speaker, and lashed out at his government for human rights violations and war crimes.

When the President of the Assembly realized he had an interloper, he cut off the mike within minutes and summoned security guards to bodily eject the intruder from the hall. And as he walked up to the podium, there was pin drop silence and the unflappable Hameed, unprompted by any of his delegates, produced a riveting punchline.

“I want to thank the previous speaker for keeping his speech short,” he said, as the Assembly, known to tolerate longwinded and boring speeches, broke into peals of laughter.

Meanwhile, a security officer once recalled an incident where the prime minister from an African country, addressing the General Assembly, was heckled by a group of African students. As is usual with hecklers, the boisterous group was taken off the visitor’s gallery, grilled, photographer and banned from entering the UN premises.

But about five years later, one of the hecklers returned to the UN —this time, as foreign minister of his country, and addressed the world body.

This article contains excerpts from a book on the United Nations titled “No Comment – and Don’t Quote Me on That” authored by Thalif Deen, Senior Editor at Inter Press Service news agency. A former member of the Sri Lanka delegation to the UN General Assembly sessions, he is a Fulbright scholar with a Master’s Degree in Journalism from Columbia University, New York, and twice (2012-2013) shared the gold medal for excellence in UN reporting awarded annually by the UN Correspondents Association (UNCA). The book is available on Amazon. The link to Amazon via the author’s website follows: https://www.rodericgrigson.com/no-comment-by-thalif-deen/

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Credit: UN Photo/Manuel Elías

By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Apr 6 2026 (IPS)

The US has spelled out in detail its own concept of what a restructured United Nations should look like: after drastic reductions in staff, cutting down its budget, avoiding duplication in mandates, slashing peacekeeping operations worldwide and deploying artificial intelligence (AI) for translations and interpretations in six languages.

As the biggest single contributor to the UN budget—and despite nearly $4.0 billion in unpaid dues—it is using its perceived financial clout to help radically change the world body.

The US says it wants to “make UN great again (MUNGA)”—a variation of President Trump’s oft-repeated slogan “Make America Great Again (MAGA).” ”.

But will it work? And is it feasible?

Ambassador Mike Waltz, U.S. Representative to the United Nations, addressing a Congressional Field Hearing on UN Reform, said last week, “As I stated in my confirmation hearing, the UN truly does need to get what we’re calling back to basics and back to its original mission, from its founding, back to maintaining international peace and security.

“As I’ve mentioned in my hearing then, the UN’s budget in the last 25 years has quadrupled. We have not seen, arguably, a quadrupling of peace and security around the world commensurate with those hard-earned dollars, he said.

“So, we are pressing it. We’re pressing it to streamline its bureaucracy, to eliminate duplication. We’ve made it clear that we will cease participation in some UN agencies that undermine our sovereignty and cannot be reformed.”

Earlier this year, he pointed out, President Trump announced “our withdrawal from 66 international organizations. That review is ongoing. And from my perspective, let me be clear, the U.S. will not fund organizations that act contrary to our interests.”

“On UN compensation and personnel,” he said, “We’re leading reforms to what are often exorbitant compensation and benefit standards that the over 100,000 UN staff receive. The UN pays 17% more than US equivalent civil servants, even though many of them are right here in New York.

“They also have additional generous benefits packages far exceeding what our great civil servants, both here and abroad, receive. And staff costs alone are 70% of their regular budget for these things we’re trying to bring back in line.

“So, we need to, and we are working to bring those compensation and benefits packages back in line with common-sense standards. Part of that will be the pension. There’s over $100 billion in management in the UN pension with 16%—I don’t know of an employer or a government out there that contributes 16% to their pension.”

And there are other reforms, he said.

For example, the number of interpreters and translators—times six for the six UN languages here—technology can be used, AI can be used, and remote translation can be used that will save a lot of the travel and the conference costs, said Waltz.

Stephen Zunes, Professor of Politics at the University of San Francisco and director of Middle Eastern Studies, who has written extensively on the politics of the United Nations, told Inter Press Service (IPS) this is not about cost-cutting or fiscal responsibility.

“Like cutbacks to important U.S. government agencies and domestic programs, the Trump administration appears determined to dismantle the system itself.”

This should be understood in the context of pulling out of international organizations and treaties, the establishment of the so-called “Board of Peace,” the Iran War, and the recently announced dramatic increases in military spending—it is about undermining international legal institutions and replacing them with an imperial order backed by raw military force, said Zunes.

Richard Gowan, Program Director, Global Issues and Institutions, at the Brussels-based International Crisis Group, told IPS in the first half of 2025, U.S. policy towards the UN was pretty chaotic, and diplomats from other countries really had no idea what Washington wanted from the world organization.

Like it or not, he said, Mike Waltz and his team have brought some message discipline and are clarifying their goals for the UN pretty sharply.

“Most diplomats say that Waltz can be reasonable in private and that ultimately, he and his team want to reshape the UN rather than just wreck it. There are times when Waltz goes out of his way to bash the UN and individual UN officials on social media, but I think that is partly him playing to the Republican base.”

Waltz is clear that he wants a slimmed-down UN, Gowan pointed out, and it is worth admitting that this is a popular message among many UN member states. The U.S. is not alone in thinking that the organization’s bureaucracy has grown too big and needs a tough financial diet.

“Trump, Rubio and Waltz are pretty consistent in arguing that the UN should focus on peace and security issues. But I think the administration has not really convinced most other UN members that it has a plan to make the UN deliver on conflict prevention and diplomacy again.”

Instead, he said, the U.S. appears to have a very selective and instrumentalist approach to when and how it uses the UN as a security partner. It wants the UN to help in Haiti but to get out of the way in Lebanon. I do not think there is really a coherent vision at work here. It is a very ad hoc, case-by-case approach.

“Trump’s boosting of the Board of Peace as a potential alternative to the UN has complicated Waltz’s position too. The fact that Trump is willing to flirt with the Board, even if it is not a very serious institution, makes it harder to believe that Washington really wants the UN to regain credibility on peace and security,” declared Gowan.

Meanwhile, excerpts from Ambassador Waltz’s testimony include the following:

• “On budget and staffing cuts, the UN should be doing less and doing it better. Let’s get it more focused and actually achieve more results. The 2026 UN regular budget was estimated at $3.45 billion. The U.S. funds roughly a fifth of that at $820 million in 2025 alone.
• Again, I think we need to reduce the UN’s size and assure every taxpayer dollar is spent responsibly, and thanks to the strong efforts by the United States, led by Ambassador Bartos here and his team in what we call the UN’s Fifth Committee, which approves its budget, we are working towards a leaner and better prioritized 2026 budget going forward.
• In December, we led Member States to adopt a historic 15% cut. $570 million out of the UN’s regular budget. That will eliminate nearly 3000 headquarters positions. And for our contribution, it will reduce our assessment by $126 million. So just in the six months that we’ve been here, we will see going forward, $126 million savings to the U.S. taxpayer.
• We’ve also pushed for a 25% reduction in peacekeeping troops, and I’ll talk a bit about other peacekeeping reforms in a moment that will also save us tens, if not hundreds of millions of dollars while enabling what we call here the repatriation, the sending home of poorly performing peacekeeping troops.
• From an oversight perspective, beyond the salaries and benefits, oversight is essential. We’re leading efforts to empower oversight bodies to root out waste, fraud, abuse, and misconduct.
• On peacekeeping reform, he said, the administration has been clear about focusing on the core mandate of peace and security, and we’re leading efforts to wind down some of these ineffective and costly peacekeeping missions.

“Some of them have been around for 30, 50, even 80 years. So, it’s one thing to stop a conflict, to insert an international force, to part ways with warring with the two sides, or to separate them to create the space for a political resolution.

“But it can’t then become an excuse to not have a political resolution. When you have a peacekeeping force, for example, in the DRC and Congo, at the cost of a billion dollars a year, that’s been there for 30 years—you can do the math and see how we have mission creep.

“So, what we’re looking to do is, as these peacekeeping forces come up for renewal, usually on an annual basis, tie them to a political process and use that as an opportunity to drive efficiencies along those lines, again, led by our reform team here that we have an ambassador, someone of an ambassador rank, dedicated to.

“This is just as a quick aside, the reimbursement for the equipment that these peacekeeping forces bring, sometimes to the tune of 10,000 18,000 soldiers. It’s quite significant. These countries were being reimbursed whether they used the equipment or not.

“All they had to do was bring it. So, there was an obvious incentive in place—and we received this feedback from the field—to not use the equipment very much, not have a lot of wear and tear, and countries would still receive the same level of reimbursement.

“We just negotiated new rules, the first time ever that put standards in place that the equipment actually has to be used for the peacekeeping force before you receive reimbursement. These are the kind of common-sense reforms that I think are pretty hard to argue with, although we received a lot of pushback, because for a lot of these countries, it’s a moneymaker for their ministries of defense. We were able to just get those reforms.

“Just a few examples: as we look to streamline these mandates, we’re also looking to draw some of them down. UNIFIL and Lebanon, we’ve made it clear, haven’t achieved their goals, haven’t lived up to its mandate and should be drawn down in the next year.

“We’re looking at a strategic review of the peacekeeping force in Western Sahara that has been there for 50 years. We are putting benchmarks in place for the peacekeeping force that’s in Southern Sudan. We just oversaw the orderly closure of UNAMI in Iraq, which will reduce costs by $87 million annually.

“We just pressed for closure of the special political mission in Yemen that will save $25 million annually. We streamlined missions in Colombia and Haiti, saving approximately $20 million annually. So again, these peacekeeping missions that solve problems do not exist indefinitely.

“On the humanitarian system, just as a personal aside, as someone who has served across Africa and the Middle East, I can’t tell you how many times I would pull up to this tiny ministry in a small country in Africa or in South Asia, and you have more UN vehicles in the parking lot than they have in their entire ministry from 16, 17, 18, different agencies, often with overlapping missions—all meaning well, all trying to help.

“But we’ve now pulled a lot of our funding that will force these agencies to use the same warehouses, use the same aviation, use the same vehicle fleets, and eliminate a lot of that duplication of waste in their back offices.

“So, moving forward, these reforms have made some significant steps. We have a long way to go—as I’m sure we’ll hear about today—to create a more focused, leaner and effective UN. We are just getting started.

“We’re building on this momentum heading into the next year with both long-overdue changes, the UN’s compensation system and pension plan, streamlining these peacekeeping missions, and halting waste that undermines effectiveness. And we’ll work with the UN leadership to align our reform agenda with the Secretary-General’s—what he calls his UN 80 mandate.

“We will have a new Secretary-General elected this year, and we’re having those conversations now with the candidates about what they seek to keep and continue or what new things they seek to put in place, but reform is at the top of our list as we meet with some of these candidates.

“So, this is a critical moment with senior leadership transitions approaching here over this next year. We need to have a clear message. We will prioritize qualified Americans. Representative DeLauro, along the lines of what you sought to do so many years ago, of having qualified Americans in UN leadership positions, not just here, but across the ecosystem in Geneva, in Vienna, and Nairobi and other places where you have UN agencies.

“And I’ll just conclude with echoing President Trump’s own words.

“As he said most recently at the General Assembly, the UN has tremendous potential. My charge from him is to help it realize that potential. We are dedicated to making the UN live up to that promise, to making the UN great again—if I can say so, our new acronym is MUNGA.

The UN is the one place where everyone can talk. If we walked away tomorrow—which neither I nor the president is advocating—it would be reinvented somewhere else. I will push hard and continuously to have it right here in the United States where it belongs.

And I look forward to keeping open dialogue with your committee. I thank you for the legislation, Chairman, that you pushed through. It adds additional arrows in our quiver to help make the UN great again,” declared Waltz.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Over 8,554 grave violations against children have occurred in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories during the ongoing conflict. Credit: UN News

By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Mar 26 2026 (IPS)

The ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which began October 2023, has claimed the lives of more than 73,600 Palestinians and about 1,195 Israelis. But there are widespread charges accusing Israel of war crimes, genocide, torture and the abuse of Palestinian detainees in Israeli jails.

But these crimes continue despite warnings and condemnations by international bodies—including the United Nations, the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the Human Rights Council—with none of them having the power of enforcement.

A question at the UN press briefing March 24 highlighted a horrible crime unprecedented in any recent conflict.

Question: Multiple news outlets reported that Israeli soldiers tortured a one-year-old Palestinian child named Karim Abu Nasr in Gaza to pressure his father. The child reportedly suffered cigarette burns, marks, and nail wounds. Did you see this report?

UN Spokesperson Stephane Dujarric: I have seen the horrific description of that report, which clearly needs to be investigated, and reading the report itself is just horrific.

Dr. Alon Ben-Meir, a retired professor of international relations, most recently at the Center for Global Affairs at New York University, who taught courses on international negotiation and Middle Eastern studies, told Inter Press Service the report about the one-year-old (often described as 18 months old) Karim Abu Nassar being tortured by Israeli soldiers in Gaza is being widely carried by pro-Palestinian and regional outlets and is attributed to a specific named journalist and Palestine TV.

Multiple outlets however, including TRT World, Daily Sabah, Anadolu Agency syndication, and advocacy or solidarity networks, report a very similar narrative, said Dr. Ben-Meir.

The child, identified as Karim (or Jawad) Abu Nassar, was detained with his father near Al Maghazi in central Gaza. Palestine TV, citing a Gaza-based journalist, Osama al Kahlout, says Israeli soldiers tortured the child during the father’s interrogation, including extinguishing cigarettes on his leg, pricking him, and inserting a metal nail into his leg.

A medical report confirmed burn marks from cigarettes and puncture wounds from a nail. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) facilitated his release about 10 hours later, while the father remains detained, he said.

“Visual posts on social media show a toddler with bandaged or visibly injured legs, identified as Karim, which is consistent with the allegations of named local sources and official Palestinian media.”

Documented torture and ill treatment of Palestinian children

“There is substantial and mounting documentation that Israeli forces have systematically tortured, severely ill treated, or disappeared Palestinian children, including in Gaza since 7 October 2023,” said Dr. Ben-Meir.

Meanwhile, the UN Secretary General’s report on children and armed conflict documents over 8,000 grave violations against children in Israel and the occupied Palestinian territory, including verified cases of detention and ill treatment of Palestinian children by Israeli armed and security forces.

The same report notes 906 Palestinian children were detained in 2023, and that 84 children reported ill treatment during detention, along with reports of detention and sexual violence against children in Gaza.

Dr. Ramzy Baroud, Editor of Palestine Chronicle and former Managing Editor of the London-based Middle East Eye, told IPS “Dujarric is correct. This is horrific. In fact, it is beyond horrific. Equally frightening is that what has befallen this little boy, Karim, and his family is not an isolated incident but a repeated reality that has manifested itself in countless ways throughout the genocide.”

There are 21,000 ‘Karims’ who have been killed in the most brutal ways, he said. “Tens of thousands more have been wounded, maimed, or remain lifeless under the rubble of a fully destroyed Gaza.”

It is also horrific that those who tortured this one-year-old boy remain free to carry out further crimes. Those responsible for killing, torturing, and maiming Gaza’s children—and their parents—continue to face no accountability.

Equally disturbing, said Dr. Baroud, is that the United Nations, at best, can acknowledge the horror yet fails to stop it, rendering international law of no practical relevance to Palestinians.

“What use are words to those who have perished in the Israeli genocide of Gaza? What use are reports, discussions, investigations, and lamentations if the perpetrators are not held accountable?”

“I am familiar with the report, and as devastating as it is, it merely mirrors countless other accounts of children who have endured similar fates—and worse.”

Palestinians are demanding action. Without it, the horror will continue, no matter how many words are written or reports are produced to recognize it, declared Dr. Baroud.

Meanwhile, the UN’s special rapporteur on Palestine, Francesca Albanese, has called on the International Criminal Court (ICC) to pursue arrest warrants for three Israeli ministers she accuses of being responsible for “systematic torture” amounting to genocide.

In a new report presented to the UN Human Rights Council this week, Albanese names National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir, Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich and Defence Minister Israel Katz as the primary political figures involved in shaping policies that enabled the torture of Palestinians after 7 October 2023

Amplifying further, Dr. Ben-Meir pointed out that the Defense for Children International-Palestine (DCIP) in a 2025 report states that “Israeli forces killed, maimed, tortured, starved, abducted and displaced Palestinian children every single day in 2025″ and describes widespread torture and ill treatment of children at all stages of detention.

Gazan children were detained and transferred to facilities such as Sde Teiman, where they report being stripped, starved, beaten, confined in cages, subjected to electric shocks, beaten with sticks, and exposed to a “disco room” with deafening music and random assaults—acts that meet standard legal definitions of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, he said.

These accounts are based on multiple child testimonies and legal documentation and are presented as evidence of criminal conduct and war crimes.

“This report is also confirmed by Israeli soldiers who served in Gaza during the war, with whom I spoke.”

Use of children as human shields and related abuse

Peer-reviewed and legal analyses, said Dr. Ben-Meir, also document episodes where Israeli forces used Palestinian children as human shields, which is itself a war crime and frequently accompanied by physical and psychological abuse.

Such practices, given the threats and harm involved, qualify as torture under international law. Tragically, it is a longstanding pattern of abuse of Palestinians, with children among the victims, by Israeli forces.

How to frame this as war crimes

Under the Convention against Torture and the Rome Statute, intentionally inflicting severe physical or mental pain for purposes such as obtaining information or confessions, punishing, intimidating, or coercing, when carried out by state agents in an armed conflict, constitutes torture and a war crime and, when widespread or systematic, can be a crime against humanity.

The Sde Teiman practices—electric shocks, starvation, severe beatings, and sensory torture—clearly meet the same threshold at scale. Coupled with UN-verified patterns of child detention and ill treatment and documented use of children as human shields.

The Karim case, as reported, fits that definition almost perfectly: a state agent intentionally inflicts severe pain on a toddler in front of his father, specifically to force a confession, he said.

“The evidentiary picture strongly supports the argument that Israel has committed war crimes and crimes against humanity involving children,” declared Dr. Ben-Meir.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

A sign outside the UN Secretariat building last year.

By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Mar 18 2026 (IPS)

As the world continues to be weighed down in political and military turmoil, drones are being increasingly used as weapons of war in a rash of ongoing conflicts—including Ukraine vs Russia, Israel vs Palestine, US vs Iran and Israel vs Lebanon, plus in civil wars in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), Sudan and Haiti.

Described as Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV), drones have fundamentally transformed modern warfare, “offering a low-cost, high-impact form of air power, challenging traditional military doctrines and giving rise to new tactics and ethical debates”.

Once limited to major military powers like the U.S. and Israel, drones are now being used by numerous state and non-state actors, including militant groups and even organized crime cartels.

The use of drones, particularly in targeted killings and with increasing autonomy, has raised significant international debate regarding accountability, civilian casualties, and compliance with international humanitarian law

UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk said last week he was “appalled by the devastating impact on civilians of increasing drone attacks”, amid reports that more than 200 civilians have been killed by drones since 4 March alone in the Kordofan region, and in White Nile state.

“It is deeply troubling that despite multiple reminders, warnings and appeals, parties to the conflict in Sudan continue to use increasingly powerful drones to deploy explosive weapons with wide-area impacts in populated areas,” said Türk.

“I renew my call on them to abide fully with international humanitarian law in their use of these weapons, particularly the clear prohibition on directing attacks against civilians and civilian objects and infrastructure, and against any form of indiscriminate attacks.”

Many homes, schools, markets and health facilities were damaged or destroyed in the attacks, compounding the impacts on civilians and local communities, he said.

Meanwhile drones are also being used in the politically-troubled Haiti and also in the conflict between the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and Rwanda despite a peace agreement brokered by the US last year.

According to a report in Cable News Network (CNN) March 17, the war in Iran is continuing to disrupt travel across the Gulf after Iranian drone strikes triggered two major air incidents in recent days. Flights at Dubai International Airport were briefly suspended on Monday after a drone struck a nearby fuel tank, igniting a large fire.

The shutdown forced cancellations and diversions as aviation authorities closed the airport. Part of the UAE’s airspace was also closed for a few hours overnight after the country said it was responding to incoming missiles and drone strikes from Iran.

Meanwhile, the prices of many global airfares that bypass the Middle East are rising, as the conflict drives up oil prices and airlines warn of higher fuel costs ahead, said CNN.

Focusing on a military perspective, Siemon Wezeman, Senior Researcher, Arms Transfers Programme, Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), told IPS more and more states, (and also non-state armed- rebel – groups) acquire drones of all sizes.

“Some of the numbers are quite amazing – Ukraine getting not a few 1,000, but far over 10,000 drones from various suppliers, and Russia, Ukraine and Iran each use drones by the 100s almost every day in the current conflicts.”

And different from some 10 years ago, when most of the drones where for reconnaissance roles, he pointed out, today many drones are armed and many more are ‘one-way attack drones’ (also called suicide or kamikaze drones). The latter are becoming a cheap alternative for long-range missiles against ground targets.

In the SIPRI arms transfers database (https://armstransfers.sipri.org), he said, “we record transfers of all armed drones, and reconnaissance drones with a weight of at least 150kg (we had to put a weight limit to be able to keep monitoring drone transfers with the resources and sources we have)”.

“And we clearly see in recent years that a) the total numbers of drones transferred between states has grown, b) several non-state actors (e.g. Houthis and Hezbollah) have also been supplied with drones, c) the number of states and non-state actors that have acquired drone has grown – most states in the world have now acquired drones, many of them from foreign suppliers, d) the number of producers and suppliers has grown – the simpler drones are offered by dozens if not 100s of large and very small companies and that number is growing, and e) drones, and especially armed drones.”

That is the picture for flying drones, Wezeman said.

But also, sea drones (surface or submarine) are starting to become popular – even if not yet transferred in any significant number. And land drones are also starting to become popular, he declared.

At a press conference March 10, UN Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs Tom Fletcher said: “I’m really worried about drones in particular. I think the world has decided that it’s far more interested in spending enormous amounts of money developing these increasingly deadly weapons than it is on saving lives, and it seems to have decided that it hasn’t got time to work on ensuring that the rules that govern these weapons, these lethal autonomous weapons, keep up with the pace of technology.”

So you’ve got this dangerous alliance between very innovative technology and huge amounts of money and people’s desire to kill more people – and that’s a toxic combination, he said.

“And last year, 90 per cent of all deaths caused by drones were civilians, many of them humanitarians. And we’re seeing that across the crises on which we work – whether it’s Gaza, Sudan or in Ukraine, we’re seeing these bad practices move between crises”.

In the DRC last week, a senior official of the UN children’s agency UNICEF and two civilians were killed in drone strikes.

Amplifying further Wezeman said all these drones and one-way attack drones have become more capable, especially in range (the simple Shahed, one-way attack drones used by Iran and sold to Russia have a range of up to 1500 to 2000km), changing them from tactical battlefield weapons to more strategic weapons.

Development is very rapidly continuing for all type of drones, including making them more autonomous and intelligent to be capable of independent targeting and other decision-making. AI plays a growing role in this process. This process leads to questions about control, but right now it seems the process is moving faster than the discussion on controlling the autonomous aspects (see also our programme on emerging technologies.

https://www.sipri.org/research/armament-and-disarmament/emerging-military-and-security-technologies.

Will they replace systems with a human on board or in the loop? The development goes certainly that way and for missiles and one-way attack drones that has already started. For the larger, more capable and more complex systems such as combat aircraft, warships and larger combat vehicles that is still a future – but not a distant dream as development of for example drone combat aircraft is already moving into prototypes in the USA, China, Australia and Europe.

There still is an element of doubt however – drones need navigation that now is largely based on GPS-type systems, something that is not free from the risks of being jammed or stopped.

The simpler drones, with their simple technology, cheap and easy to produce are also not as effective as hoped. Most of them are rather easy prey for air-defence systems (or jamming) – while Russia, Iran and Ukraine send every day dozens or 100s to attack their opponents, most do no reach their target but are shot down or lost due to jamming or other causes, declared Wezeman.

Meanwhile Human Rights Watch said last week its latest research on “how Haitian security forces and private contractors working with them have conducted extensive and apparently unlawful lethal drone strikes in densely populated areas killing and injuring residents who were not members of criminal groups, including children”.

“We call on Haitian authorities to urgently rein in the security forces and private contractors working for them before more children die”, said HRW.

According to data from multiple sources reviewed by Human Rights Watch, at least 1,243 people were killed by drone strikes in 141 operations between March 1, 2025, and January 21, 2026, including at least 43 adults who were reportedly not members of criminal groups, and 17 children. The data also shows that the drone strikes injured 738 people, at least 49 of whom were reportedly not members of criminal groups.

“Dozens of ordinary people, including many children, have been killed and injured in these lethal drone operations,” said Juanita Goebertus, Americas director at Human Rights Watch. “Haitian authorities should urgently rein in the security forces and private contractors working for them before more children die.”

The United Nations Integrated Office in Haiti has attributed the drone attacks in Haiti to a specialized “Task Force” established by Prime Minister Alix Didier Fils-Aimé that is operated with support from the private military company Vectus Global.

The US ambassador to Haiti has confirmed that the US State Department issued a license to Vectus Global to export defense services to Haiti.

Thalif Deen, Senior Editor, Inter Press Service (IPS) news agency, was a former Director, Foreign Military Markets at Defense Marketing Services; Senior Defense Analyst at Forecast International; military editor Middle East/Africa at Jane’s Information Group and UN correspondent for Jane’s Defence Weekly, London.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Credit: UNDP Ukraine

By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Mar 10 2026 (IPS)

The ongoing military conflict between Ukraine and Russia—which began February 2022, with no visible signs of ending—has triggered major arms transfers to Europe.

According to the latest report from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), the volume of major arms transferred between states increased by 9.2 per cent between 2016–20 and 2021–25.

And states in Europe more than trebled their arms imports, making it the biggest recipient in the region.

Total exports by the United States, the world’s largest arms supplier, increased by 27 per cent. This included a 217 per cent increase in US arms exports to Europe, according to new data published by SIPRI, available at www.sipri.org.

The increase in global arms flows was the biggest since 2011–15—and was “overwhelmingly due to the growth in transfers to Ukraine” (which received 9.7 per cent of all arms transfers in 2021–25) and other European states.

Besides Europe and the Americas, arms imports to all other world regions decreased.

Dr M.V. Ramana, Professor and Simons Chair in Disarmament, Global and Human Security, and Director pro tem, School of Public Policy and Global Affairs, at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, told IPS the continued increase in the arms trade, with some European countries and the United States engaging in the vast majority of such trade, is deeply concerning.

It should be seen in the backdrop of growing military expenditure around the world (reaching an estimated $2.7 trillion in 2024), an intensified round of great power competition, as well as the collapse of arms control, and new technologies like AI-based targeting systems and drones being used in warfare, he said.

“These weapons and other technologies are not merely sold and stored by recipient militaries, but used in attacks on civilian populations—the last few years have seen major attacks in innocent people in Palestine, Lebanon, Yemen, Ukraine, and Iran”.

Although some of these imports are being rationalized as responses to various perceived threats, he pointed out, these actions in turn will increase threat perceptions in other countries, leading to a feedback loop resulting in more and more arms being sold and used.

“Much of this money flows to companies that profit from making weapons and facilitating death. Just in the United States, during roughly the same period covered in SIPRI’s report, from 2020 to 2024, private firms received $2.4 trillion in contracts from the Pentagon, approximately 54% of the department’s discretionary spending of $4.4 trillion over that period,” said Dr Ramana.

The United States supplied 42 per cent of all international arms transfers in 2021–25, up from 36 per cent in 2016–20, according to the SIPRI report, released March 9.

The US exported arms to 99 countries in 2021–25, including 35 in Europe, 18 in the Americas, 17 in Africa, 17 in Asia and Oceania and 12 in the Middle East.

For the first time in two decades, the largest share of US arms exports went to Europe (38 per cent) rather than the Middle East (33 per cent). Nevertheless, the top single recipient of US arms was Saudi Arabia (12 per cent of US arms exports).

‘The US has further cemented its dominance as an arms supplier, even in an increasingly multipolar world,’ said Pieter Wezeman, Senior Researcher with the SIPRI Arms Transfers Programme.

‘For importers, US arms offer advanced capabilities and a way of fostering good relations with the USA, while the USA views arms exports as a tool of foreign policy and a way of strengthening its arms industry, as the Trump administration’s new America First Arms Transfer Strategy once again makes clear.’

Dr. Natalie Goldring, who represents the Acronym Institute at the United Nations on conventional weapons and arms trade issues, told IPS the SIPRI report is in effect a snapshot of a continually changing world situation.

SIPRI, she said, uses five-year periods to help reduce volatility, but even so, intense geopolitical swings can be difficult to capture. This period reflects the Ukraine arms buildup after the Russian invasion in 2022 as well as Israel’s nearly-complete destruction of Gaza following the Hamas attack in 2023.

“Since the most recent US and Israeli attacks on Iran are taking place in 2026, they’re not covered in the SIPRI report. Those attacks may result in even more arms transfers from the US to Israel, in addition to substantial domestic resupply in both countries”.

The dependence of Israel’s military on US arms transfers, she said, is neither secret nor new. But SIPRI’s statistics make the point quite strongly.

From 2021-2025, the United States was responsible for 68 percent of the value of major weapons transferred to Israel. Germany supplied an additional 31 percent.

That could give those two countries tremendous influence over Israel and its ability to continue carrying out attacks in Gaza and elsewhere – if they chose to exercise it.

“Unfortunately, thus far, the US and German governments have shown little interest in restraining their weapons transfers, despite the enormous numbers of Palestinians who have been wounded or killed by the Israeli military, and the economic devastation the Israeli military continues to cause in Gaza and elsewhere,” said Dr Goldring.

The US share of the world’s arms market is likely to increase going forward if US President Donald Trump’s recent plans are implemented. In February 2026, President Trump issued an Executive Order titled “Establishing an America First Arms Transfer Strategy.”

The stated intent of this policy is to increase US arms sales – there’s no attempt at subtlety. Instead, the policy calls for development of “a sales catalog of prioritized platforms and systems that the United States shall encourage our allies and partners to acquire.”

As is so often the case, the US policy fails to demonstrate understanding of the complexities and potential negative consequences of arms transfers.

Instead, it’s focused on short-term economic factors and benefits for military contractors. The policy also assumes that this year’s weapons recipients will retain stable governments for the lifetime of these weapons systems.

This approach increases the risk of US military personnel being forced to fight our own weapons if the recipient governments turn out not to be stable, declared Dr Goldring.

Middle East arms imports fall

Meanwhile, according to SIPRI, arms imports by states in the Middle East shrank by 13 per cent between 2016–20 and 2021–25. Three of the world’s top 10 arms importers in 2021–25 were in the region: Saudi Arabia (6.8 per cent of global imports), Qatar (6.4 per cent) and Kuwait (2.8 per cent).

More than half of arms imports to the Middle East came from the USA (54 per cent), while 12 per cent came from Italy, 11 per cent from France and 7.3 per cent from Germany.

‘Gulf Arab states shape arms import trends in the Middle East, with Saudi Arabia having been the region’s largest importer since 2011–15 and Qatar now its second largest after more than doubling its imports between 2016–20 and 2021–25,’ said Zain Hussain, Researcher with the SIPRI Arms Transfers Programme.

‘With a number of regional tensions and conflicts, Gulf Arab states are working to strengthen relations with long-standing suppliers like the USA and France while also seeking new suppliers.’

Israel was the world’s 14th largest arms importer in 2021–25, with its imports rising by 12 per cent between 2016–20 and 2021–25.

In 2021–25 the USA supplied the largest share of Israel’s arms imports (68 per cent), followed by Germany (31 per cent).

Throughout the multi-front war stemming from Israel’s large-scale military offensive in Gaza beginning in October 2023, Israel continued to receive arms from various suppliers, including F-35 combat aircraft, guided bombs and missiles from the USA.

https://www.sipri.org/publications/2026/sipri-fact-sheets/trends-international-arms-transfers-2025

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Will AI kickstart a new age of nuclear power? Credit: Unsplash/Taylor Vick In a data centre (above), servers are high-performance computers that process and store data. Meanwhile, the United Nations has taken a firm stance that decisions regarding the use of nuclear weapons must rest with humans, not machines, warning that integrating Artificial Intelligence (AI) into nuclear command, control, and communications (NC3) presents an unacceptable risk to global security.

By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Mar 6 2026 (IPS)

As artificial intelligence (AI) threatens to dominate every aspect of human lives —including political, economic, social and cultural –there is also the danger of the potential militarization of AI.

The integration of AI into nuclear command, control, and communications (NC3) systems, as well as its use in military decision-making, introduces severe, unprecedented risks to global security, according to one report.

Key negative effects include the acceleration of decision-making to “machine speed” (leaving little time for human judgment), increased vulnerability to cyberattacks, and the erosion of strategic stability.

According to the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, command and control of nuclear weapons is a delicate and complicated system, designed to prevent error while ensuring reliability under high-pressure conditions.

In environments where vast amounts of data shape high-stakes outcomes, artificial intelligence has become a natural consideration.

“The integration of a rapidly evolving technology raises fundamental questions about responsibility, data quality, and system reliability. When a single error could have irreversible consequences, how can confidence be built around the integration of machine learning into systems that have long relied on human judgment and oversight?”

“What guardrails should be maintained? Where are the opportunities for international collaboration and consensus?”

Tariq Rauf, former Head of Verification and Security Policy at the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), told IPS the role of and integration of Artificial Generative Intelligence (AGI) raises some of the most consequential questions of our technological era.

The integration of AGI into nuclear command, control, and communications (NC3) systems is not merely an engineering challenge — it is a civilizational one.

The Problem of Machine Speed

Perhaps the most alarming aspect of the integration of AGI into NC3 systems, he pointed out, is the compression of decision-making timelines to “machine speed.” Nuclear strategy has historically depended on deliberate human judgment — the ability of decision-makers to pause, assess ambiguous data, consult advisors, and choose restraint even under pressure or attack.

AGI systems, by contrast, are designed to process and respond at velocities no human can match. In a crisis, this creates a dangerous paradox: the very speed that makes AGI attractive also makes meaningful human oversight nearly impossible.

“If an AGI system misidentifies a sensor anomaly as an incoming missile — something that has happened with human-operated systems before, as the 1983 Soviet false alarm incident illustrates — the window for correction could shrink from minutes to seconds.”

The margin for error in nuclear decision-making has always been uncomfortably thin; AGI risks eliminating it entirely, said Rauf.

Data Quality and System Reliability

Data quality and integrity are foundational concerns regarding AGI. Machine learning systems are only as reliable as the data on which they are trained, he argued.

“Nuclear environments present unique ultra complex challenges: they involve rare, high-stakes events with limited historical data, adversarial actors who may deliberately feed misinformation into sensor networks, and geopolitical contexts that shift faster than training datasets can capture”.

An AGI system that confidently acts on corrupted or misrepresented data in a nuclear context could trigger escalation based on a fiction. Worse still, the opacity of many machine learning models — the so-called “black box” problem — means that even system designers may not be able to explain why a particular output was generated, let alone correct it in real time, declared Rauf.

Vladislav Chernavskikh, Researcher, Weapons of Mass Destruction Programme, at the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) told IPS existing state approaches to AI-nuclear nexus already broadly converge on the principle of retaining human control in nuclear decision making, yet there is no consensus on how this should be defined or operationalized.

A formal recognition of this principle by nuclear-weapon states and elaboration of what human control constitutes in this context and how it can manifest in the nuclear weapons domain can be one of the first steps towards minimising risks, he declared.

At the AI Impact Summit in New Delhi last month, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said the future of AI cannot be decided by a handful of countries and the whims of a few billionaires.

Last year, the General Assembly took two decisive steps, he said.

First, by creating an Independent International Scientific Panel on Artificial Intelligence, and second, by launching a Global Dialogue on AI Governance within the UN, where all countries, together with the private sector, academia and civil society, can all have a voice.

He told participants at the summit that real impact means technology that improves lives and protects the planet. And he called on them to build AI for everyone, with dignity as the default setting.

UN Spokesperson Stephane Dujarric told reporters last month, the Secretary-General is not calling for the United Nations to rule over AI. He’s calling for – and has put in place – an architecture with the help of Member States to try to ensure that everybody gets a seat at the table.

And as he said: “AI will and has already impacted all of us. It is vital that those countries who may not have the technology also have a voice and that science and fairness be put at the centre of AI.”

Responsibility and Accountability

In a further analysis, Rauf said when AGI recommendations or autonomous actions contribute to catastrophic outcomes, the question of accountability becomes deeply problematic.

Traditional chains of command assign clear human responsibility at each decision point. AGI integration fractures this clarity. Is it the software developer, the military commander, the government that deployed the system, or the algorithm itself that bears responsibility for a miscalculation? he asked.

The absence of clear accountability frameworks is not just a legal or ethical problem — it is a strategic one, because adversaries and allies alike need to understand who is in control and what decision logic is being applied.

Cyberattack Vulnerability

AGI-enhanced or dependent NC3 systems also expand the attack surface for adversaries. Sophisticated cyberattacks — including adversarial inputs designed to manipulate AGI outputs — could potentially spoof or blind these systems in ways that are difficult to detect until it is too late. The integration of AGI thus creates new vectors for destabilization that did not exist in earlier nuclear architectures, said Rauf.

The Case for International Collaboration

Despite these alarming challenges, international collaboration could be a potential avenue for managing risk. Confidence-building measures, shared technical standards, and bilateral or multilateral ‘enforceable’ agreements on the limits of AGI autonomy in nuclear systems could help preserve strategic stability.

Arms control history, said Rauf, shows that even adversaries can agree on rules that serve mutual interests in survival. Extending that tradition to AGI-enabled NC3 systems is urgently needed — before the technology outpaces diplomacy entirely.

“The integration of AGI into nuclear systems technically might be inevitable. Whether it is managed wisely is a political and moral choice that remains very much open and seems beyond the intellectual, moral/ethical processing capabilities of today’s civil and military ‘leaders’, declared Rauf.

This article is brought to you by IPS NORAM, in collaboration with INPS Japan and Soka Gakkai International, in consultative status with the UN’s Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC).

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Credit: Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect

By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Mar 3 2026 (IPS)

As the build-up for a proposed “new world order” continues, a lingering question remains: will the country with the most powerful military reign supreme?

The United Nations remains politically impotent. The UN charter is in tatters. The sovereignty of nation states and their territorial integrity have been reduced to political mockery. And the law of the jungle prevails—be it Palestine, Ukraine, Venezuela or Iran.

What’s next: Colombia? Cuba? Greenland? North Korea?

The widespread condemnation of the ongoing conflicts – including charges of war crimes and genocide— has continue to fall on deaf ears.

UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres told the Security Council that under Article 2 of the UN Charter, all member states shall “refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.”

But is anybody out there listening?

Norman Solomon, executive director, Institute for Public Accuracy and national director, RootsAction.org, told IPS killing from the sky has long offered the sort of detachment that warfare on the ground can’t match. Far from its victims, air power remains the height of modernity

Reliance on overwhelming air power is key to what the U.S. is doing in tandem with Israel. Bombing from the skies while not attacking with ground forces is the ultimate way of killing without suffering many casualties.

This reduces political blowback at home in a political and media culture that values American lives but sees the lives of “others” as readily expendable, he pointed out.

“This flagrant war of shameless aggression, launched by the United States and Israel, cannot be contained — much less rolled back — by the typical diplomatic euphemisms and caution.”

The U.S. and Israeli governments, said Solomon, are too completely run by psychopathic leaders who adhere only to the “principle” that might makes right. If ever there were a time that the vaunted “international community” should step up and confront an alliance of reckless outlaw governments, this is it.

The European allies of the United States, he said, should stop their cowardly vagueness and finally step up to demand a halt to this aggression that is setting the Middle East tinderbox on fire. The EU should be threatening huge countermeasures against the United States and Israel unless that pair of sociopathic governments immediately halts their assault on Iran.

“Playing evasive games with Washington makes the leaders in London, Paris, Berlin and elsewhere accomplices to methodical ongoing war crimes”, declared Solomon, author of “War Made Invisible: How America Hides the Human Toll of Its Military Machine”

According to the Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect, the US-Israeli act of aggression against Iran was undertaken in violation of international law and the UN Charter, as they exercised use of force without authorization from the UN Security Council (UNSC) or without a demonstrated threat to their security that would trigger the right to self-defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter.

“The attack came amid ongoing nuclear talks between the US and Iran and just hours after Oman’s Foreign Minister – a key mediator in the negotiations – shared details on progress achieved and announced that a breakthrough was near. The attack also mirrors the recent unlawful actions undertaken by the US in Venezuela on 3 January, culminating in the kidnapping of the head of state and setting in motion profound uncertainty for the region and the global order.”

Meanwhile, the Geneva-based UN refugee agency, the UNHCR, said it is deeply concerned about the escalation of conflict in the Middle East and its impact on civilians and further displacement in the region.

“Many affected countries already host millions of refugees and internally displaced people. Further violence risks overwhelming humanitarian capacities and placing additional pressure on host communities”.

“We echo the UN Secretary-General’s urgent call for dialogue and de-escalation, respect for human rights, the protection of civilians and full adherence to international law”.

James Jennings, President of Conscience International, told IPS the joint US-Israeli attack on Iran was misguided, illegal, and based on lies. It will retard, not advance, any future nuclear agreement, perhaps for decades.

It was illegal, he pointed out, because it violates both the US constitution and international law as enshrined in the UN Charter. It was based on lies because the nuclear watchdog groups have clearly indicated in essence that “There’s nothing to see here.”

“Trump regularly claims that June’s joint “Operation Midnight Hammer” obliterated Iran’s nuclear capability, yet his weak case for the current “Operation Epic Fury” war rests on the idea that perhaps someday in the future Iran might get a bomb. Several US administrations have worked diplomatically to prevent that, yet Trump tore the agreement up”.

Trump claims to be limited by no law, constitution, or the UN Charter. Guided only by his own morality, as he said recently, he followed Israel obediently in launching a massive war against a sleeping country of 92 million people, said Jennings.

“All the while, his amateur diplomats were negotiating deceptively for a compromise like Imperial Japan did in the run-up to the WW II Pearl Harbor attack. Ask the parents of the more than l00 schoolgirls killed on the first horrifying day of joint US-Israel bomb attacks at Minaj, Iran, and they will probably not see Mr. Trump as particularly moral”.

George W. Bush called himself “The Decider, so he foolishly decided to take the US into two unwinnable wars that most politicians in Washington, and even Trump himself, now consider monumental mistakes. Trump campaigned vigorously on keeping the US out of mistaken Middle East wars that became “Forever Wars,” said Jennings.

“Yet here he is being pulled around by the nose by Mr. Netanyahu. According to a classic rule when launching a war, one must recognize that two things cannot be changed: one is history and the other is geography. It is stunning that the leader of the United States is cavalier about going to war without understanding that or clearly stating the mission’s purpose or end game.”

Pundits and TV reporters are calling the attack on Iran “a war of choice,” said Jennings.

“Why not call it what it really is–a war of naked aggression? Nobody knows when will it end. Trump’s claim that the war will be over in a few days is a cruel joke. The other side gets a vote. Iran celebrated its 2,500th anniversary in 1971. Maybe people who have been around so long know a few things about survival,” declared Jennings.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

The General Assembly adopted a resolution in 2012 granting Palestine the status of non-member observer State in the United Nations. Credit: UN Photo/Rick Bajornas

By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Feb 26 2026 (IPS)

The 193-member General Assembly, the highest-ranking policy-making body at the United Nations, is most likely to elect Palestine as its next President in an unprecedented move voting for a “non-member observer state”—a state deprived of a country to represent.

The Secretariat has received three nominations for the position of President of the General Assembly beginning mid-September. In accordance with the established regional rotation, the President of the 81st session will be elected from the Asia-Pacific Group.

The election will be held on June 2, with three nominations so far: Md. Touhid Hossain (Bangladesh), Andreas S. Kakouris (Cyprus) and Riyad Mansour (Palestine).

According to geographical rotation, it will be the turn of the Asia-Pacific Group to nominate a candidate– with the final election by the General Assembly.

The current front-runner, according to diplomatic sources, is Palestine. In virtually all UN resolutions relating to Palestine, it has continued to receive an overwhelming majority of votes in the General Assembly.

The political support for Palestine among member states has always remained constantly strong. And the election of Palestine will also defy a hostile White House.

In November 2012, the General Assembly voted to upgrade Palestine to a “non-member observer state” with a majority of 138 votes in favor, 9 against, and 41 abstentions.

• Votes in Favor (138): Supported by a majority of UN member states.
• Votes Against (9): Canada, Czech Republic, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Nauru, Palau, Panama, and the United States.
• Abstentions (41): Countries that did not vote for or against.

Last December the General Assembly overwhelmingly adopted a draft resolution reaffirming the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination, including the right to an independent State of Palestine.

The draft resolution was approved by a majority of 164 member states (out of 193), with eight countries voting against it, namely Israel, the US, Micronesia, Argentina, Paraguay, Papua New Guinea, Palau, and Nauru.

Nine countries abstained: Ecuador, Togo, Tonga, Panama, Fiji, Cameroon, the Marshall Islands, Samoa, and South Sudan.

Dr Stephen Zunes, Professor of Politics at the University of San Francisco and director of Middle Eastern Studies, told IPS a broad international consensus in support for the establishment of a viable independent Palestinian state in the occupied West Bank and Gaza, and naming a Palestinian as the next president of the UN General Assembly would send a strong message to the Israeli government and its supporters in Washington that the State of Palestine, now recognized by 164 of the UN’s 193 states, should be treated like any other nation.

It would also underscore that Palestine is represented by the Fatah-led Palestine Authority, not by Hamas, which forcibly seized power in Gaza in 2007, he said.

“If Palestine is elected to the General Assembly presidency, the position would likely go to Riyad Mansour, a U.S.-educated diplomat who currently serves as the country’s UN ambassador”.

Mansour, he pointed out, has spent most of his life in the United States, has worked with Youth4Peace and other groups promoting peacebuilding, has no association with terrorism, and is generally considered a moderate.

“Nevertheless, his selection will likely result in an angry backlash from Washington, which opposes any formal role by anyone representing Palestine”.

In 2017, during his first term, the Trump administration blocked the appointment of former prime minister Salam Fayyad, also a well-respected moderate and reformer, from leading the U.N. political mission in Libya to try to end that country’s civil war simply because he was Palestinian, declared Dr Zunes.

Dr Ramzy Baroud, a Palestinian-American author and editor of The Palestine Chronicle, told IPS
two international campaigns are unfolding simultaneously: a US-led effort aimed at legitimizing Israel while it is still actively attempting to exterminate the Palestinian people, and a General Assembly–championed track aimed at legitimizing Palestine, Palestinian rights, and the Palestinian struggle.

The push to elect Palestine as the next UN General Assembly president — though the State of Palestine remains an observing member and lacks actual sovereignty on the ground — is taking place against this stark backdrop: one campaign normalizing and shielding a genocidal state, the other seeking to affirm the rights and political standing of a dispossessed nation, he pointed out.

“Nothing could be more immoral than Washington’s attempt to rehabilitate Israel diplomatically amid genocide. And nothing could be more just than the effort by Palestine’s allies to anchor Palestinian rights within international legitimacy” he said..

Yet a difficult question remains: while the US is gradually chipping away at Israel’s isolation, is much of the international community offering Palestinians little more than symbolic victories?, he noted.

“If the legitimization of Palestine at the General Assembly is to move beyond symbolism, it must translate into concrete recognition of Palestinian territorial rights, sovereignty, and freedom. Legitimacy must not remain rhetorical; it must become political and material,” Dr Baroud argued.

“This requires that the UN General Assembly states that support Palestine in international forums carry that support onto the ground — by isolating Israel diplomatically, severing ties, imposing sanctions, and adopting meaningful accountability measures. While some states have taken such steps, others continue to pursue a precarious “balance,” appeasing Washington and Tel Aviv while paying lip service to Palestine.”

Palestinians are winning what Richard Falk, the former UN Special Rapporteur on Palestine, has called the legitimacy war. But legitimacy as an intellectual or moral category is not enough. At this historical juncture, it must be transformed into enforceable political reality — into sovereignty, protection, and freedom on the ground, said Dr Baroud.

“We hope that the continued centering of Palestine at the UN and across global institutions strengthens the growing current of solidarity worldwide. More importantly, we hope that symbolic recognition will soon give way to decisive and tangible action,” he declared.

Samir Sanbar, a former UN Assistant Secretary-General and head of the Department of Public Information, told IPS the Inalianble rights of the Palestinian people, confirmed repeatedly by the General Assembly, would offer an opportunity for the Permanent Observer Mission to offer a candidate for the President of the General asembly.

Ambassador Riyad Mansour has served at the United Nations post longer than many current “Permanent Representatives” and would most likely attract wide support, particularly at these challenging times with the tragic humanitarian situation in Gaza, he said.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

The Security Council armed with veto powers. Credit: UN Photo/Manuel Elías

By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Feb 17 2026 (IPS)

As the campaign for the next Secretary-General gathers momentum – at a relatively slow pace – there is widespread speculation that any candidate running for the post of UN chief will have to abide by the dictates of a politically hostile White House or face a veto in the Security Council.

So far, there are only two declared candidates: former Chilean President Michelle Bachelet and former Director-General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Rafael Grossi from Argentina—with more candidates expected to join the race.

The winning candidate, who will take office in January 2027, will be elected by the 15-member Security Council and subsequently ratified by the 193-member General Assembly (UNGA).

Annalena Baerbock, the president of UNGA, said the selection process is already underway, and the interactive dialogues with candidates have been scheduled for the week of 20 April, where they will present their “vision statements”.

Meanwhile, the US has publicly declared its opposition to some of the basic goals in the UN’s socio-economic agenda, including gender empowerment and policies relating to diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI), while dismissing climate change as “a hoax” and a “giant scam.”
The Trump administration has also downplayed human rights and adherence to international laws—two concepts ingrained in the UN system.

In an interview with the New York Times last January, President Trump said he does not “need international law” to guide his actions, arguing that only his own “morality” and “mind” will constrain his global powers.

So, what would be the fate of any candidate— male or female—who advocates these UN goals? Will there be a battle of the vetoes – as it happened in a bygone era?

Richard Gowan, Program Director, Global Issues and Institutions, International Crisis Group (ICG), who oversees ICG’s work on geopolitics, global trends in conflict and multilateralism, told IPS nobody knows how this race will end.

Obviously UN-watchers will be tracking the initial candidates’ vision statements and public appearances over the coming months, he pointed out.

“But diplomats in New York have a suspicion that the veto powers in the Security Council may suddenly announce support for a new candidate at the last minute to circumvent the entire public process. There is a strong sense that the U.S., China and Russia don’t want to be boxed in by the General Assembly.”

There is also a scenario, he said, where the veto powers cannot agree on a candidate, and the Council ends up grinding out discussions of a candidate right through to December.

“UN officials have even done some contingency planning for what happens if there is not an agreed candidate on 1 January 2027. It is possible that the Security Council might ask Guterres to hang on for a few months, although I don’t think either diplomats or Guterres want that outcome.”

There are definitely a few senior UN officials and ambassadors in New York who wonder if the Council could call on them at the very last minute, said Gowan.

Thomas G. Weiss, Presidential Professor Emeritus, Political Science, and Director Emeritus, Ralph Bunche Institute for International Studies at the CUNY Graduate Center, told IPS it is hard to imagine anyone running for UNSG who would not run into a veto from Washington in a candidacy necessarily addressing the values of cooperation (multilateralism of any shape) as well as honestly discussing such issues as climate, gender (male or female), nuclear proliferation, Palestine, and sovereignty—all “hoaxes” or “con jobs” according to DJT (President Trump) and his junta.

Both the 1996 and 1981 elections, he said, provide “models.”

“The Chinese vetoes probably are the most relevant precedent for Washington going to the mat indefinitely until an “acceptable” candidate emerges. Let’s hope that person is as competent as the compromise of 1996, Kofi Annan”, he declared.

In 1981, Salim Ahmed Salim of Tanzania, was backed by the Organization of African Unity, the Non-Aligned Movement and China. But his bid was blocked by a US veto.

In 1996, a second five-year term for Boutros Boutros-Ghali of Egypt was vetoed by the US – even though he received the support of 14 of 15 members in the Security Council.

In 1981, China cast a record 16 vetoes against Kurt Waldheim to prevent a third term, leading to his withdrawal and the selection of Javier Pérez de Cuéllar.

Meanwhile, there has been an intense campaign for a female UN chief, the first in the 81-year history of the UN. But the US has remained tight-lipped on the widely supported proposal.

The last 9 secretaries-general, all males, include:

António Guterres (Portugal), who took office in January 2017;
Ban Ki-moon (Republic of Korea), from January 2007 to December 2016;
Kofi A. Annan (Ghana), January 1997 to December 2006;
Boutros Boutros-Ghali (Egypt), January 1992 to December 1996;
Javier Pérez de Cuéllar (Peru), January 1982 to December 1991;
Kurt Waldheim (Austria), January 1972 to December 1981;
U Thant (Burma, now Myanmar), who served from November 1961, when he was appointed acting Secretary-General (he was formally appointed Secretary-General in November 1962), to December 1971;
Dag Hammarskjöld (Sweden), from April 1953 until his death in a plane crash in Africa in September 1961; and
Trygve Lie (Norway), who held office from February 1946 to his resignation in November 1952.

As for the U.S., said Gowan, “I don’t believe that Washington has settled on a candidate yet. But the Trump administration is definitely conscious that they have the power to reshape the political culture of the organization if they find someone who aligns with their views”.

He said U.S. diplomats have told other veto powers that they will hold back on various reform proposals and cuts until they have their own candidate as Secretary-General.

A lot of UN members assume that the U.S. won’t accept a female Secretary-General but I think that Washington could back a woman if she was a strong social conservative and willing to make large cuts to the UN system, he argued.

“Right now, there is not an obvious female candidate meeting those criteria, though. I think some candidates who could never align with the U.S. on things like development and diversity are already stepping out of the race.”

Meanwhile, there is a reason that Mia Mottley has gone from being the putative front runner to refocusing on domestic politics.

“I also think that all candidates recognize that they are going to have to talk a lot more about how they will advance the UN’s work on peace and security, which is a priority not only for the U.S. but a lot of member states.”

“That said, one senior UN diplomat recently told me that they cannot see Global South countries accepting another Western candidate after Guterres, regardless of gender. The non-Western members of the Security Council could create a blocking minority in the Security Council to keep candidates from U.S. allies out,” declared Gowan.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

US President Barack Obama delivers his first major speech, stating a commitment to seek peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons, in front of thousands in Prague, Czech Republic, April 5, 2009. Credit: Official White House Photo by Pete Souza

By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Feb 12 2026 (IPS)

When the nuclear Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) between the US and Russia expired last week, it ended a historic era— but triggered widespread speculation about the future.

UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said “February 5 was a grave moment for international peace and security”.

For the first time in more than half a century, he pointed out, “we face a world without any binding limits on the strategic nuclear arsenals of the Russian Federation and the United States of America – the two States that possess the overwhelming majority of the global stockpile of nuclear weapons.”

US President Donald Trump dismissed the termination of the treaty rather sarcastically when he told the New York Times last month: “if it expires, it expires”—and denounced the expiring treaty as “a badly negotiated deal”.

“We will do a better agreement”, he promised, adding that China, which has one of the world’s fastest growing nuclear arsenals, “and other parties” should be part of any future treaty.

The Chinese, according to the Times, “have made clear they are not interested”.

Currently, the world’s nine nuclear powers are the US, UK, Russia, France and China—all permanent members of the Security Council—plus India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea.

Collectively, they possess an estimated 12,100 to 12,500 nuclear warheads, with Russia and the US owning nearly 90% of the total eve while all nine are actively modernizing their arsenals.

Jonathan Granoff, President, Global Security Institute told IPS the START Treaty should be extended at least a year by formal or informal means. Is that as good as obtaining a new treaty that would include China as the US administration wants? No.

“Is it as good as fulfilling legally required steps such as adherence to the International Court of Justice’s (ICJ) unanimous ruling to negotiate the universal elimination of nuclear weapons or the fulfillment of the promise of nuclear disarmament embodied in Article 6 of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT)? No”.

However, argued Granoff, doing nothing is asserting that a modest threat reducing easily obtained step now should not be taken because there are better ways forward. A modest positive step is no impediment to moving in other desired manners.

Fully terminating START communicates to the entire world that the US and Russia are so diplomatically inept that they cannot be trusted to continue to hold the entire world hostage to annihilation by holding thousands of first-use-ready nuclear weapons over everyone’s heads without adequate reasonable restraint, said Granoff.

The arguments being put forth as to why nothing can be done are inadequate.

First, the US argues that a new arrangement, a new treaty, is needed to bring China into the fold of restraint, he said.

“A modest step of extending START for a year by mutual presidential decrees while new negotiations take place does not negate creating a new treaty that would include China.”

Second, the arguments used to rationalize the new arms race fail to consider the folly of producing more accurate, usable, and powerful nuclear weapons”, declared Granoff.

Guterres pointed out the dissolution of decades of achievement could not come at a worse time – the risk of a nuclear weapon being used is the highest in decades.

“Yet even in this moment of uncertainty, we must search for hope. This is an opportunity to reset and create an arms control regime fit for a rapidly evolving context.”

“I welcome that the Presidents of both States have made clear that they appreciate the destabilizing impact of a nuclear arms race and the need to prevent the return to a world of unchecked nuclear proliferation.

“The world now looks to the Russian Federation and the United States to translate words into action. I urge both States to return to the negotiating table without delay and to agree upon a successor framework that restores verifiable limits, reduces risks, and strengthens our common security’, said Guterres.

In a statement released last week, Parliamentarians for Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament (PNND), a global network of legislators working to achieve a nuclear weapons-free world, said the importance of the New START treaty is hard to overstate.

“As other nuclear treaties have been abrogated in recent years, this was the only deal left with notification, inspection, verification and treaty compliance mechanisms between Russia and the US. Between them, they possess 87% of the world’s nuclear weapons.”

The demise of the treaty will bring a definitive and alarming end to nuclear restraint between the two powers. It may very well accelerate the global nuclear arms race, PNND warned.

This was one of the key reasons that on January 27, 2026, the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists reset the Doomsday Clock to 85 Seconds to Midnight.

Last year, PNND Co-President Senator Markey introduced draft legislation into the US Senate urging the government to negotiate new post-START agreements with Russia and China. The legislation is supported by a number of other Senators and by a companion bill in the House of Representatives. But this seems to have fallen on deaf ears in the Trump Administration.

Granoff, providing a deeper analysis, told IPS the scientific data makes clear that a full-scale nuclear war between the US and Russia would annihilate humanity and that a limited nuclear exchange of less than 2% of the world’s arsenals would put around 5 million tons of soot into the stratosphere leading billions of deaths and the devastation of modern civilization everywhere.

“Realism reveals that the alleged need to duplicate the arsenals of adversary nations is not needed for deterrence. Realism also reveals that there is actually little to no meaningful difference between a nation having 600 (as China does now) or over 1400 deployed nuclear weapons, mirroring the US and Russia, or 30,000 nuclear weapons as Russia and the US each had at the height of the last arms race”.

“The reality is that devastation globally of a small portion of the world’s nuclear arsenals would be unambiguously unacceptable to any sane person. We could say that realism informs us that we have moved from Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) to Self-Assured Destruction (SAD). The fact is that if any of the 9 states with the weapons were to use several hundred nuclear weapons that nation itself would also be devastated. MAD today reveals a new acronym, SAD.”

Meanwhile, a posting in the US State Department website reads:

Treaty Structure: The Treaty between the United States of America and the Russian Federation on Measures for the Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms, also known as the New START Treaty, enhances U.S. national security by placing verifiable limits on all Russian deployed intercontinental-range nuclear weapons. The United States and the Russian Federation had agreed to extend the treaty through February 4, 2026.

Strategic Offensive Limits: The New START Treaty entered into force on February 5, 2011. Under the treaty, the United States and the Russian Federation had seven years to meet the treaty’s central limits on strategic offensive arms (by February 5, 2018) and are then obligated to maintain those limits for as long as the treaty remains in force.

Aggregate Limits

Both the United States and the Russian Federation met the central limits of the New START Treaty by February 5, 2018, and have stayed at or below them ever since. Those limits are:

• 700 deployed intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), deployed submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs), and deployed heavy bombers equipped for nuclear armaments;
• 1,550 nuclear warheads on deployed ICBMs, deployed SLBMs, and deployed heavy bombers equipped for nuclear armaments (each such heavy bomber is counted as one warhead toward this limit);
• 800 deployed and non-deployed ICBM launchers, SLBM launchers, and heavy bombers equipped for nuclear armaments.

This article is brought to you by IPS NORAM, in collaboration with INPS Japan and Soka Gakkai International, in consultative status with the UN’s Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC).

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Credit: United Nations

By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Feb 6 2026 (IPS)

The current UN financial crisis, described as the worst in the 80-year-old history of the world body, triggers the question: is the US using its financial clout defaulting in its arrears and its assessed contributions to precipitate the collapse of the UN?

If the crisis continues, the UN headquarters will be forced to shut down by August, ahead of the annual meeting of world leaders in September this year, according to a report in the New York Times last week, quoting unnamed senior UN officials.

But apparently there is still hope for survival —judging by a report coming out of the White House.

Asked about the current state of finances, UN Spokesperson Stephane Dujarric told reporters February 5: “We’ve seen cuts by the United States. We’ve seen cuts by European countries over the last year. And every day, I talk to you about what happens when there’s no money, right?”

“Rations are being reduced, health care not being delivered. So, I mean it’s pretty clear. In terms of the Secretariat, should it come to pass, it will impact our ability to run meetings in this building, to do the political work we do, the peacekeeping work that we do”, he pointed out.

About hopes of a possible resolution, he said “I do also have to say that we saw the reports…earlier this week – of the President of the United States signing a budget bill, which includes funding for the United Nations”.

“We welcome that, and we will stay in contact with the US over the coming days and weeks to monitor the transfers of those monies,” said Dujarric.

Meanwhile, in an interview with IPS last week, Sanam Naraghi Anderlini, Founder/CEO, International Civil Society Action Network (ICAN), said the potential financial collapse of the UN is depressing and yet so indicative of these times, when leadership everywhere is devoid of any sense of responsibility and has no care for the future.

They are the antithesis of the UN’s founding fathers and mothers, who, having experienced the hell of war and destitution first hand, committed themselves to creating a global peace and security architecture with the goal of preventing such hell for us – the future generation – their descendants, she argued.

“We all know that the UN system has never been perfect. It has never lived up to its potential. Often this has been due to the shenanigans of the powerful states, who persist in manipulating the institution for their own interests”.

The UN Security Council has long been the insecurity Council, given how the P5 are all implicated in one or other of the worst wars and genocides of the past 25 years, she said.

“But they are not solely to blame. Within the system too, we have seen both leadership and staff with vested interests, benefitting from the inertia, and unwilling to uphold new practices and priorities that would have brought transformative impact”.

“But dysfunction should not lead to abandonment and the dismantling of the system. The UN cannot be stripped and have its key assets and functions sold to the lowest bidder”.

Already, she said, the dystopian (US-created) Board of Peace is akin to the corporate raiders and vulture funds of the finance world – trying to strip the UN of its key functions but with no accountability or guard rails pertaining to its actions.

As it stands, the U.S. currently owes about $2.196 billion to the U.N.’s regular budget, including $767 million for this year and for prior years, according to U.N. sources.

The U.S. also owes $1.8 billion for the separate budget for the U.N.’s peacekeeping operations overseas, and that also will rise.

As of February 5, only 51 countries had paid their dues in full for 2026—that’s 51 out of 193. A breakdown of the last four payments follows: Australia, $65,309,876, Austria, $20,041,168, Croatia, $2,801,889, and Cyprus $1,120,513.

Dr. Stephen Zunes, Professor of Politics and International Studies at the University of San Francisco, told IPS on the one hand, the United States has been in arrears in its payments to the United Nations quite a bit in recent years, but the UN has managed to get by.

However, the extent of the Trump administration’s cutbacks and the ways they are being targeted at particularly vulnerable programs has resulted in this unprecedented fiscal crisis.

“The hostility of the Trump administration to the United Nations is extreme. Trump has made clear he believes there should be no legal restraints on the conduct of U.S. foreign policy, so it is not surprising he would seek to undermine the world’s primary institution mandated with supporting international law and world order,” declared Dr Zunes.

Addressing the UN’s Administrative and Budgetary Committee last week Chandramouli Ramanathan, Assistant Secretary-General, Controller, Management Strategy, Policy said: “The UN staff is progressively losing confidence in the entire budget process,” referring to cash shortages that have led to severe spending and hiring restrictions. The United Nations needs to find a compromise that allows the Organization to function effectively, he added.

Anderlini, elaborating further, told IPS “now more than ever, the institution must be sustained and enabled to thrive and deliver on the promise of the Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the body of conventions and policies that have been developed through painstaking work to meet the challenges of today’s world.”

When global military spending is topping $2.6 trillion, she said, the UN’s approved annual budget of $3.45 billion seems like pocket change.

“It is absurd for our governments to be borrowing billions to fund weapons, but nickel and diming the UN, governmental agencies and civil society organizations that work to prevent conflict, build peace and ensure human and environmental security.”

“We live in an era where one man’s assets may soon be valued at over one trillion dollars and the world’s billionaire class wealth increased by $2.5 trillion in just one year 2025. They are lauded and applauded even though their wealth is made on the backs, bodies and lands of “We the people of the United Nations” – whether through tax avoidance or investment in high climate impact sectors such as fossil fuels and mining.”

Perhaps they should be taxed and forced to foot the bill for their complicity in the disasters that the UN is forced to clean up.

Peace and development are good for business, she argued. “They are essential for any society to survive and thrive. The UN and the global ecosystem of institutions and people dedicated to caring for the world give us our humanity – far beyond anything that can be limited to monetary value. But in dollar terms they are a great investment with returns that benefit billions of people worldwide, not just a stockpile of deadly weapons or a handful of billionaires”.

Thanks to member states’ abrogation of responsibility to uphold human rights and prevent the scourge of war, violence cost the world $19.97 trillion in 2024, or 11.6% of global GDP. According the Institute of Economics and peace this represents $2,455 per person, includes military spending, internal security, and lost economic activity, declared Anderlini.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Credit: UN/Monicah Aturinda Kyeyune

By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Feb 3 2026 (IPS)

A sharp cut in funding for “South-South Cooperation” (UNOSSC) has triggered a strong protest from the 134-member Group of 77 (G-77), described as the largest intergovernmental organization of developing countries within the United Nations.

The protest has been reinforced by four UN ambassadors, two of them former chairs of the G77—Colombia (1993) and South Africa (2015), along with Brazil and India.

Traditionally, the G77 has been backed by China, the world’s second largest economy, and a veto wielding member of the Security Council

A letter of protest, addressed to Alexander De Croo, Administrator, UN Development Programme (UNDP), which funds and oversees the UNOSSC, says South-South cooperation remains a central pillar of the work of the United Nations and is of particular importance to the Group of 77 and China.

The UNOSSC, established by the UN General Assembly at the initiative of the G-77, “plays a critical role in supporting, coordinating and implementing South-South and triangular cooperation initiatives and projects across the United Nations development system, including in support of the UN development agenda”.

“Against this background, the G-77 and China wish to express its serious concern regarding the significant reduction in resources proposed to be allocated by UNDP to UNOSSC under the 2026–2029 Strategic Framework,” says Ambassador Laura Dupuy Lasserre, Permanent Representative of Uruguay to the United Nations and Chair of the Group of 77, in a letter to the UNDP Administrator.

The scale of the proposed reduction is described as “substantial and, if implemented, would severely constrain the Office’s ability to effectively deliver on its mandate.”

The reduction is estimated at 46% of funds allocated by UNDP to UNOSSC under the proposed 2026-2029 Strategic Framework. And in dollar terms, the proposed allocation amounts to USD 16.6 million, down from the USD 30.7 million under the 2022-2025 Strategic Framework. (the amount actually disbursed was approximately USD 22 million).

Of particular concern is the potential impact of these funding reductions on the management and operational capacity of Trust Funds administered by UNOSSC, including the Perez-Guerrero Trust Fund for South-South Cooperation (PGTF) and other financing mechanisms that provide critical support to developing countries.

The G77 Chair has received a démarche from the Chair of the Committee of Experts of the PGTF conveying the concerns that the ability of the PGTF to continue fulfilling its regular operations might be at stake.

“Reduced institutional capacity to manage these Trust Funds would undermine their effectiveness and would have adverse consequences for beneficiary countries that rely on these instruments to advance development priorities”, warns the letter.

The Group of 77 (and China) is of the view that consideration of the proposed Strategic Framework requires further clarification before approval and should therefore be postponed.

Furthermore, the Group underscores the importance of continued transparency and structured dialogue with Member States.

“Any proposals involving the restructuring or reconfiguration of UNOSSC should be submitted for review and approval, in line with the fact that the Office was established by a resolution of the General Assembly and therefore falls under the authority of Member States.”

“In light of the above, the Group of 77 and China respectfully requests that UNDP give due consideration to all available options to substantially increase the allocation of resources to UNOSSC.”

Such action, the letter said, would be essential to safeguard the effective implementation of the Office’s mandate, protect the integrity and functionality of Trust Fund operations, and avoid negative impacts on developing countries.

Meanwhile, the letter from the four ambassadors reads:

• 1.  “South-South cooperation remains a central pillar of the work of the United Nations and is of particular importance to developing countries. The United Nations Office for South-South Cooperation plays a vital role in supporting, coordinating and implementing South-South cooperation initiatives across the United Nations development system, including in support of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

2. It is, therefore, with grave concern that we note the dramatic reduction (46%) of funds allocated by UNDP to UNOSSC under the proposed 2026-2029 Strategic Framework: only USD 16.6 million, down from the USD 30.7 million allocated under the 2022-2025 Strategic Framework, the amount actually disbursed having been approximately USD 22 million.

3. While we fully understand the current financial difficulties faced by the UN system as a whole, we believe that the allocation of funds proposed to South-South cooperation imposes losses that are considerably higher than the average reduction experienced by UNDP programs. In addition, given the said current difficulties, it is even more likely that, in 2026-2029, the actual disbursement could be significantly less than the original allocation.

4. In this case, UNOSSC would be left with very modest funding. It is beyond doubt that expected deep cuts in funding will negatively and profoundly impact the Office’s ability to continue providing its invaluable support to developing countries, including in trust fund management. In this particular regard, reduced capacity in UNOSSC to properly support trust funds would be detrimental to the best interests of dozens of developing countries.

5. In light of the foregoing, we kindly request that UNDP promptly consider all means at its disposal to substantially increase allocation to UNOSSC, thus allowing for the effective implementation of the Office’s mandate and avoiding damage to many developing countries.

6. A second concern relates to the proposed shift of the Office toward a more policy-oriented approach, which could aggravate the steep cut in funding mentioned above. While we fully recognize the importance of policy guidance, we strongly believe that an appropriate balance between policy and programming functions must be preserved in UNOSSC, thus ensuring that strategic orientation is underpinned by adequate programmatic capacity.

7. We trust that these considerations will be duly taken into account, acted upon and unambiguously reflected in the final version of the Strategic Framework for 2026-2029.”

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

UN Secretary-General António Guterres (seated at right) speaks to reporters at a press conference at UN Headquarters, in New York. UN Photo/Mark Garten

By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Jan 30 2026 (IPS)

UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres was dead on target when he told the Security Council last week that the rule of law worldwide is being replaced by the law of the jungle.

“We see flagrant violations of international law and brazen disregard for the UN Charter. From Gaza to Ukraine, and around the world, the rule of law is being treated as an à la carte menu,” he pointed out, as mass killings continue.

“The New York Times on January 28 quoted a recent study pointing out the four-year war between Russia and Ukraine has resulted in over “two million killed, wounded or missing”. The study published last week by the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington says nearly 1.2 million Russian troops and close to 600,000 Ukrainian troops have been killed, wounded or are missing.

In the war in Gaza, over 70,000 Palestinians, mostly civilians, including women and children, have been killed since October 7, 2023, with figures reaching over 73,600 by early January 2026, according to various reports from the Gaza Health Ministry and human rights organizations.

These killings have also triggered charges of war crimes, genocide and violations of the UN charter, as in the US invasion of Venezuela and the takeover threats against Greenland.

Guterres said in an era crowded with initiatives, the Security Council stands alone in its Charter-mandated authority to act on behalf of all 193 Member States on questions of peace and security. The Security Council alone adopts decisions binding on all.

No other body or ad hoc coalition can legally require all Member States to comply with decisions on peace and security. Only the Security Council can authorize the use of force under international law, as set out in the Charter. Its responsibility is singular. Its obligation is universal, declared Guterres.

Dr Ramzy Baroud, Editor of Palestine Chronicle and former Managing Editor of the London-based Middle East Eye, told IPS the statement by the Secretary-General is long overdue.

Too often, he said, UN officials resort to cautious, euphemistic language when describing egregious violations of international law—especially when those responsible are UN Security Council veto holders, states that have ostensibly sworn to uphold the UN Charter and the core mission of the international system.

Unfortunately, the UN itself has become a reflection of a rapidly shifting world order—one in which those with overwhelming military power sit at the top of the hierarchy, abusing their dominance while steadily hollowing out the very institutions meant to restrain them, he pointed out.

“We must be honest with ourselves and acknowledge that this crisis did not begin with the increasingly authoritarian misuse of law by the Trump administration, nor is it limited to Israel’s absolute disregard for the international community during its two-year-long genocide in Gaza.”

The problem is structural. It is rooted in the way Western powers have long identified—and exploited—loopholes within the international legal system, selectively weaponizing international law to discipline adversaries while shielding allies and advancing their own strategic agendas, he declared.

Responding to a question at the annual press briefing on January 29, Guterres told reporters it is obvious that members of the Security Council are themselves violators of international law –and it doesn’t make life easy for the UN in its efforts.

Unfortunately, he said, there is one thing that we miss. “It’s leverage. It’s the power that others eventually have, to force countries and to force leaders to abide by international law. But not having the power, we have the determination, and we’ll do everything possible with our persuasion, with our good offices, and building alliances to try to create conditions for some of these horrible tragedies we are witnessing. And from Ukraine to Sudan, not to mention what has happened in Gaza, we will be doing everything we can for these tragedies to stop”.

Dr Jim Jennings, President of Conscience International, told IPS the global humanitarian situation described by the Secretary-General is grim but very real. The climate crisis, natural disasters, numerous ongoing and expanding conflicts, and the impact of new technologies, all add to today’s global economic instability and affect every person on earth.

While President Trump continues bombing countries and strutting the world stage with his adolescent dream of US territorial expansion, a major readjustment of the global power balance among China, the US, Europe, and the BRICS nations is underway, he noted.

Stripping life-giving aid away from the poorest countries on earth to benefit those already rich, as his policies guarantee, is a recipe for even more global suffering and violence.

“Clearly one of the most blatant and harmful reasons for the present disastrous situation worldwide is the reduction of funding for UN agencies by the United States, which has traditionally paid a high percentage of their costs”.

With the further curtailment of The Department of State-USAID’s enormous support for people in critical need in almost every country in the world, the Trump administration’s one-two punch has already threatened to make a challenging set of problems unmanageable.

What is to be done? People and governments everywhere must stand up, speak out, and act against the colossal forces now arrayed against some of the world’s most vulnerable populations. How to do that has never been easy, Dr Jennings argued.

Put in the simplest terms, Secretary-General Guterres was merely pointing out the glaring fact of the true global situation and appealing for the critical need UN agencies have for support if their mission is not to fail. The answer is straightforward— more private funding.

Why not raise the level of our individual, corporate, and foundation donations to the UN Agencies and other aid organizations while continuing to advocate for responsible government backing for the irreplaceable United Nations agencies? he asked.

Dr Palitha Kohona, a former Chief of the UN Treaty Section, told IPS international relations, for a very long time, were dependent on the whims of powerful states and empires. Might was right and disputes were settled by using force. Land inhabited for centuries was annexed to empires and native populations were dispossessed or even exterminated.

From such fractured beginnings, an orderly world governed by agreed rules began to emerge gradually, although most of the rules were established by the powerful.

Thousands of treaties were concluded, customary rules were respected and a rudimentary judicial structure began to be established. The world rejoiced in the establishment of the United Nations.

Though lacking in proper enforcement mechanisms and largely dependent on voluntary mutually beneficial compliance, a rule based international order was beginning to emerge.

“Many, including the present writer, wrote enthusiastically about the consolidation of a rules-based international order. The violence that was commonplace in international dispute resolution prior to the Second World War appeared to be limited to distant parts of the world.”

But like a cozy dream being shattered in mid-sleep, he said, the USA has rudely disrupted the illusion of a new international rules-based world order of which it was once a champion. The trade rules, so painfully developed, have been ditched. Mutual deal making has resurfaced, he said.

“Now it would seem that the powerful would determine the rules, based on self-interest. Rules relating to sovereignty, territorial integrity and rights of people would now seem to depend on the whims of the powerful. The weak will draw their own conclusions. Acquire counterattack capabilities that would make an aggressor think twice”.

“Unless the medium powers and powerless band together and resolve to maintain the international rule of law, we may be entering an era of extreme uncertainty in international relations”, declared Dr Kohona, a former Permanent Representative of Sri Lanka to the UN and Ambassador to China.

Dr Baroud also pointed out that the 2003 US-British invasion of Iraq stands as a textbook example, but the same pattern has repeated itself in Libya, Syria, and across large parts of the Middle East and beyond. In each case, international law was either manipulated, ignored, or retroactively justified to accommodate power rather than principle.

Israel’s genocide in Gaza, the war in Ukraine, and the ongoing atrocities in Sudan and elsewhere are not aberrations. They represent the culmination of decades of legal erosion, selective enforcement, and the systematic degradation of the international legal order.

While I agree—and even sympathize—with Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney’s comments at the World Economic Forum in Davos, in which he expressed criticism of the new power dynamics that have rendered the international political system increasingly defunct, one cannot help but ask why neither he nor other Western leaders are willing to confront their own governments’ historical role in creating this reality.

Without such reckoning, calls to defend international law risk sounding less like principled commitments and more like selective outrage in a system long stripped of credibility.

European powers that are critical of Trump have not raised their voice with the same intensity and vigor against Netanyahu for doing a lot worse than anything that Trump has done or threatened to do.

This also begets the same question about the latest comments by the UN Secretary-General. He should offer more specifics than generalized decrying the collapse of international morality.

“Moreover, we expect a roadmap that will guide us in the process of re-establishing some kind of a sane global system in the face of the growing authoritarianism, dictatorship, and criminality all around”, declared Dr Baroud.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Jan 26 2026 (IPS)

Judging by the mixed signals coming out of the White House, is the Board of Peace, a creation of President Donald Trump, eventually aimed at replacing the UN Security Council or the United Nations itself?

At a ceremony in Davos, Switzerland last week, Trump formally ratified the Charter of the Board — establishing it as “an official international organization”.

Trump, who will be serving as the Board’s Chairman, was joined by Founding Members* “representing countries around the world who have committed to building a secure and prosperous future for Gaza that delivers lasting peace, stability, and opportunity for its people.”

Norman Solomon, executive director, Institute for Public Accuracy and national director, RootsAction.org, told IPS President Trump’s “Board of Peace” is being designed as a kind of global alliance akin to the “coalition of the willing” that fraudulently tried to give legitimacy to the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Trump, he said, is recruiting submissive governments to fall in line with his leadership for pushing the planet ever more in the direction of war for domination and plunder.

The price that members of the Orwellian-named “Board of Peace” will pay is much more than the sought amount upwards of $1 billion each. In a global gangster mode, Trump is making plans and putting up structures on imperial whim, he pointed out.

“At the same time, the methods to his madness are transparent as he seeks to create new mechanisms for U.S. domination of as much of the world as possible”.

Trump continues to push the boundaries of doublespeak that cloaks U.S. agendas for gaining economic and military leverage over other countries. The gist of the message on behalf of Uncle Sam is: “no more Mr. Nice Guy.”

Whereas Trump’s predecessors in the White House have often relied on mere doubletalk and lofty rhetoric to obscure their actual priorities and agendas, Trump has dispensed with euphemisms enough to make crystal clear that he believes the U.S. government is the light of the world that all others should fall in line behind, said Solomon, author of “War Made Invisible: How America Hides the Human Toll of Its Military Machine”

Asked about the Board of Peace, UN Spokesperson Stephane Dujarric told reporters last week: “Let’s be clear. We are committed to doing whatever we can to ensure the full implementation of Security Council Resolution 2803, which as you will recall, welcomed the creation of the Board of Peace for Gaza”.

And as you know, he said, part of that resolution and the plan put forward by President Trump talked about the UN leading on humanitarian aid delivery.

“I think we have delivered a massive amount of humanitarian aid in Gaza, as much as we’ve been able to allow. And we’ve talked about the restrictions, but you know how much more we’ve been able to do since the ceasefire. As part of that, we’ve worked very well with the US authorities, and we will continue to do so.”

The UN, Dujarric reaffirmed, remains the only international organization with universal membership. “We’ve obviously saw the announcements made in Davos. The Secretary-General’s work continues with determination to implement the mandates given to us, all underpinned by international law, by the charter of the UN. I mean, our work continues.”

Asked about the similarities between the UN logo and the logo of the Board of Peace, he said he saw no copyright or trademark infringements.

In a statement released last week, Louis Charbonneau, UN Director at Human Rights Watch (HRW) said the United States played a leading role in establishing the UN. Now, US President Donald Trump is undermining and defunding large parts of it.

For the past year, he said, the US government has taken a sledgehammer to UN programs and agencies because the Trump administration believes the institution is “anti-American” and has a “hostile agenda.”

In UN negotiations, US officials have tried to purge words like “gender,” “climate,” and “diversity” from resolutions and statements. Diplomats have described to Human Rights Watch how US officials aggressively oppose human rights language they see as “woke” or politically correct, he said.

In an apparent attempt to sideline the UN Security Council, Trump has proposed a so-called Board of Peace that he personally would preside over. Trump has reportedly offered seats on his board to leaders of abusive governments, including Belarus, China, Hungary, Israel, Russia, and Vietnam, Charbonneau pointed out.

Originally the Board of Peace was meant to oversee the administration of Gaza following over two years of onslaught and destruction by Israeli forces, with which the United States was complicit. But the board’s charter doesn’t even mention Gaza, suggesting that Trump’s ambitions for this body have expanded enormously since first conceived.

The board’s proposed charter doesn’t mention human rights. And it makes clear that Trump, as board chairman, would have supreme authority “to adopt resolutions or other directives” as he sees fit.

A seat on the Board of Peace doesn’t come cheap: there’s a US$1 billion membership fee. Some, like French President Emmanuel Macron, already turned down an offer to join. Trump responded with a threat to significantly increase tariffs on French wine and champagne.

“The UN system has its problems, but it’s better than a global Politburo. Rather than paying billions to join Trump’s board, governments should focus on strengthening the UN’s ability to uphold human rights,” he declared.

Elaborating further, Solomon said the entire “Board of Peace” project is a dangerous farce that seeks to reconstitute a unipolar world that has already largely fallen apart during this century in economic terms.

The criminality of Trump’s approach, supported by the Republican majority in Congress, is backed up by the nation’s military might. More than ever, U.S. foreign policy has very little to offer the world other than gangsterism, extortion and blackmail – along with threats of massive violence that sometimes turn into military attacks that shred all semblance of international law.

Every U.S. president in this century, as before, has disregarded actual international law and substituted the preferences of its military-industrial complex for foreign policy. Trump has taken that policy to an unabashed extreme, shamelessly adhering to George Orwell’s dystopian credo of “War Is Peace” while pushing to wreck what’s left of a constructive international order.

Incidentally, when Indonesia’s mercurial leader Sukarno decided to quit the UN and form the Conference of the New Emerging Forces (CONEFO) as an alternative, it did not last very long, as Sukarno’s successor, Suharto “resumed” Indonesia’s participation in the UN.

No lasting harm was done to the UN. And all was forgotten and forgiven.

In a further clarification, UN Deputy Spokesperson Farhan Haq told reporters the Board of Peace has been authorized by the Security Council for its work on Gaza – strictly for that. “

“We’re not talking about the wider operations or any of the aspects that have been in the media for the last several days. What we’re talking about is the work on Gaza”.

“As you know, we have welcomed the ceasefire in Gaza and measures to support it, including the Board of Peace, and we’ll continue to work with all parties on the ground to make sure that the ceasefire is upheld. That is about Gaza.”

The larger aspects, he said, are things for anyone wanting to participate in this grouping to consider. Obviously, the UN has its own Charter, its own rules, and you can do your own compare and contrast between the respective organizations.

“As you’re well aware, he pointed out, the UN has coexisted alongside any number of organizations. There are regional organizations, subregional organizations, various defence alliances around the world. Some of them, we have relationship agreements with. Some of them, we don’t.

“We would have to see in terms of details what the Board of Peace becomes as it actually is established to know what sort of relationship we would have with it,” declared Haq.

The participants* at the signing event in Geneva last week included:

• Isa bin Salman bin Hamad Al Khalifa, minister of the prime minister’s court, Bahrain
• Nasser Bourita, minister of foreign affairs, Morocco
• Javier Milei, president, Argentina
• Nikol Pashinyan, prime minister, Armenia
• Ilham Aliyev, President, Azerbaijan
• Rosen Zhelyazkov, prime minister, Bulgaria
• Viktor Orban, prime minister, Hungary
• Prabowo Subianto, president, Indonesia
• Ayman Al Safadi, minister of foreign affairs, Jordan
• Kassym-Jomart Tokayev, president, Kazakhstan
• Vjosa Osmani-Sadriu, president, Kosovo
• Mian Muhammad Shehbaz Sharif, prime minister, Pakistan
• Santiago Peña, president, Paraguay
• Mohammed Bin Abdulrahman Al Thani, president, Qatar
• Faisal bin Farhan Al Saud, minister of foreign affairs, Saudi Arabia
• Hakan Fidan, minister of foreign affairs, Turkey
• Khaldoon Khalifa Al Mubarak, special envoy to the U.S. for the UAE
• Shavkat Mirziyoyev, president, Uzbekistan
• Gombojavyn Zandanshatar, prime minister, Mongolia

A long list of countries, including Canada, France, Germany, Italy and other European nations, were absent from the signing, and some have specifically rejected the invitation.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Injured civilians, having escaped the raging inferno, gathered on a pavement west of Miyuki-bashi in Hiroshima, Japan, at about 11 a.m. on 6 August 1945. Credit: UN Photo/Yoshito Matsushige
 
On the 80th anniversary, which was commemorated in August 2025, Izumi Nakamitsu, UN High Representative for Disarmament Affairs, said: “We remember those who perished. We stand with the families who carry their memory,” as she delivered the UN Secretary-General's message.
 
She paid tribute to the hibakusha – the term for those who survived Hiroshima and the atomic bombing of Nagasaki – “whose voices have become a moral force for peace. While their numbers grow smaller each year, their testimony — and their eternal message of peace — will never leave us,” she said.

By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Jan 23 2026 (IPS)

The two current ongoing conflicts, which have claimed the lives of hundreds and thousands of people, are between nuclear and non-nuclear states: Russia vs Ukraine and Israel vs Palestine, while some of the potential nuclear vs non-nuclear conflicts include China vs Taiwan, North Korea vs South Korea and the United States vs Iran (Venezuela, Mexico, Colombia, Cuba and Denmark).

The growing list now includes another potential conflict: nuclear China vs non-nuclear Japan is the world’s only country devastated by US atomic bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945 which killed over 150,000 to 246,000, mostly civilians.

A statement last month by Japan’s Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi warned that her country could intervene militarily if China were to attack Taiwan—a statement that has the potential for a new conflict in Asia.

According to the New York Times, Beijing has “responded furiously,” asserting that self-governing Taiwan is an integral part of Chinese territory. The government has also urged millions of tourists to avoid Japan, has restricted seafood imports and increased military patrols.

Meanwhile, amidst rising military tension, the Japanese government has called for a snap general election on February 8, to seek a fresh public mandate for the new administration.

In an article titled “An Anxious Nation Restarts One of its Biggest Nuclear Plants,” the Times said on January 22 that “Tokyo Electric Power (TEPCO)—the same utility that operated the Fukushima plant—has restarted the first reactor, Unit 6, at its Kashiwazaki-Kariwa complex, one of the world’s largest nuclear facilities.”

Before 2011, nuclear power provided about 30 percent of Japan’s electricity, the Times pointed out.

According to the Stockholm Peace Research Institute, Japan’s military budget in 2024 had grown to the 10th largest in the world. China’s military budget has also been growing, in 2024 being second only to that of the United States.

Jackie Cabasso, Executive Director of the Western States Legal Foundation, Oakland, California, and North American Coordinator for “Mayors for Peace,” told IPS that Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s recent statement that an armed attack on Taiwan by China could constitute an “existential threat” to Japan is very worrying indeed.

In 1967, she said, Japan’s then–Prime Minister Eisaku Sato set out the Three Non-Nuclear Principles—of not possessing, not producing, and not permitting the introduction of nuclear weapons—which were formally adopted by the House of Representatives in 1971.

“However, Japan’s commitment to these Principles has been called into question over the years, and it is widely believed that Japan has the capability to rapidly produce nuclear weapons, should the decision be made to do so.”

Beijing is ratcheting up the rhetorical heat. Whether true or not, a recent report by the China Arms Control and Disarmament Association and the Nuclear Strategic Planning Research Institute, a think tank affiliated with the China National Nuclear Corporation, alleges that Japan is engaged in a secret nuclear weapons program and poses a serious threat to world peace. Meanwhile, China is rapidly modernizing and increasing the size of its own nuclear arsenal, said Cabasso.

“Japan, as the only country in the world to have experienced the use of nuclear weapons in war, has the unique moral standing to be a champion for dialogue and diplomacy, peace, and nuclear disarmament.”

Japan and China’s leadership—and for that matter, all world leaders—should listen to the Mayors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, who on January 20 issued a Joint Appeal on behalf of the 8,560 members of Mayors for Peace in 166 countries and territories, declaring, “We urge all policymakers to make every possible diplomatic effort to pursue the peaceful resolution of conflicts through dialogue and to take concrete steps toward the realization of a peaceful world free from nuclear weapons.”

Dr. M.V. Ramana, Professor and Simons Chair in Disarmament, Global and Human Security and Director pro tem, School of Public Policy and Global Affairs at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, told IPS even without nuclear weapons being utilized, the use of military force in Taiwan would be disastrous for global security, and especially for the people of Taiwan.

“Any resolution of the dispute over Taiwan should follow two fundamental principles: it should be settled through dialogue and discussion, and it should prioritize the wishes of the inhabitants of Taiwan. Finally, all parties should avoid provocative remarks,” he declared.

The new developing story also figured at a recent UN press briefing.

Question: We know that there is a long-standing policy of Japan, called the three non-nuclear principles, which basically says that Japan shall neither possess nor manufacture nuclear weapons nor shall it permit their introduction into Japanese territory. But currently, the Japanese Government is under a discussion of revision of some of those security documents, including this policy, which draws quite anger from people from Hiroshima and Nagasaki and some of the Nobel Peace Prize winners. What’s the position of the UN?

UN Spokesperson Stephane Dujarric: Look, I think the Secretary-General’s position on denuclearization has been clear and he has stated it a number of times. Obviously, Member States will set whatever policy they wish to set. What is important for us is that the current tensions between the People’s Republic of China and Japan be dealt through dialogue so as to lower the tensions that we’re currently seeing… I think the Secretary-General’s position on denuclearization and non-proliferation is well known and has been unchanged.

At a party leaders’ debate last November, Tetsuo Saito, representative of the New Komei Party, which was founded in 1964 by the late Dr. Daisaku Ikeda, leader of Japan’s Soka Gakkai Buddhist movement, questioned Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi in the Diet about the government’s stance on the Three Non-Nuclear Principles and Japan’s security policy.

He criticized remarks by a senior government official suggesting Japan should possess nuclear weapons, calling them contrary to Japan’s post-war policy and damaging to diplomatic and security efforts.

He emphasized that the principles—not to possess, not to produce, and not to permit nuclear weapons on Japanese soil—and Japan’s obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty are fundamental and must remain unassailable.

• Saito stated that the Takaichi administration’s position leaves room for ambiguity, especially when Takaichi’s replies were perceived as non-committal about maintaining the principles.
• He expressed concern that this ambiguity could open the door to future revision and said Komeito will continue to press the government to uphold the principles without qualification in future Diet sessions.
• In December 2025, Saito reiterated in public remarks that the Three Non-Nuclear Principles and Japan’s policy against nuclear weapons should be preserved.
• He has urged the government to reaffirm this commitment clearly to both domestic and international audiences and to listen to hibakusha (atomic-bomb survivors) and civil society voices advocating nuclear abolition.

Elaborating further, Cabasso said that given Japan’s brutal invasion of China during World War II and China’s growing threats to reclaim Taiwan, dangerous long-simmering tensions between the two countries have reemerged. In an increasingly unstable and unpredictable geopolitical world, Japan and China’s war of words is a train wreck waiting to happen.

Article 9 of Japan’s 1947 Peace Constitution, imposed on Japan by the United States in an act of victor’s justice, states, “the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right and the threat of use of force as a means of settling disputes,” and armed forces “will never be maintained.”

However, these provisions have been eroding in the 21st century, with Japan in 2004 sending its Self-Defense Forces out of area – to Iraq – for the first time since World War II. And in 2014, then Prime Minister Shinzo Abe reinterpreted Article 9, allowing Japan to engage in military action if one of its allies were to be attacked.

The following year, she pointed out, the Japanese Diet enacted a series of laws allowing the Self-Defense Forces to provide material support to allies engaged in combat internationally in an “existential crisis situation” for Japan. The justification was that failing to defend or support an ally would weaken alliances and endanger Japan.

References

Japan Secretly Building Nukes, Could Go Nuclear Overnight Under Takaichi’s Policy Shift, Chinese Report Claims
https://www.eurasiantimes.com/japan-secretly-building-nukes-could-go-nuclear/

Mayors for Peace Joint Appeal, January 20, 2026
https://www.mayorsforpeace.org/en/

This article is brought to you by IPS NORAM, in collaboration with INPS Japan and Soka Gakkai International, in consultative status with the UN’s Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC).

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Credit: United Nations

By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Jan 13 2026 (IPS)

Judging by the mass US withdrawal from 66 UN entities, including UN conventions and international treaties, is it remotely possible that the unpredictable Trump administration may one day decide to pull out of the UN, and force the Secretariat out of New York– despite the 1947 UN-US headquarters agreement?

Besides the 66, the withdrawals also include the pullouts from the Human Rights Council, the WHO, UNRWA and UNESCO– while imposing drastic reductions in funding for the remaining UN entities the US has not yet formally exited.

So, will the United Nations, which has come under heavy fire, be far behind?

That possibility is strengthened by the critical views of the UN both by President Trump and senior US officials.

Dr Stephen Zunes, Professor of Politics, University of San Francisco, who has written extensively on issues relating to the United Nations, told IPS even the U.S. presidents most hostile to the United Nations– like Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush– recognized the importance of the world body in terms of advancing U.S. interests, including understanding the importance of maintaining the UN system as a whole, even while violating certain legal principles in particular cases.

Similarly, he pointed out, the United States was willing to participate in various UN bodies in an effort to wield influence, even while disagreeing with some of their policies or even their overall mandates.

“The Trump administration, however, appears to be rejecting the post-WWII international legal system as a whole. His statements, particularly since the attack on Venezuela, appear to be a throwback to the 19th-century imperial prerogatives and a rejection of modern international law.”

“As a result, it is possible that Trump could indeed pull the United States out of the United Nations and force the UN out of New York”, declared Dr Zunes.

Addressing the General Assembly last September, Trump remarked, “What is the purpose of the United Nations? It’s not even coming close to living up to [its] potential.”

Dismissing the U.N. as an outdated, ineffective organization, he boasted, “I ended seven wars, dealt with the leaders of each and every one of these countries, and never a phone call from the United Nations offering to help in finalizing the deal.”

Martin S. Edwards, Associate Dean of Academic and Student Affairs, School of Diplomacy and International Relations at Seton Hall University, told IPS “this is dubious language about cutting inefficiency and fighting diversity wrapped up in red meat to feed President Trump’s base”.

It’s a ploy to use foreign affairs to distract voters for whom he has yet to deliver. The fact that the actual follow-up documents haven’t been received by the Secretary General tells you everything here. It fits a pattern of the President carving out maximalist positions and then getting very little in the end, he pointed out.

But it’s a bigger challenge, he said, on two fronts:

1. This is going to continue to REDUCE US influence at the UN rather than increase it. Stable foreign relations are based on credibility. The US continues to squander its reserves, and other countries will step into the vacuum.

2. This policy might have been a good social media post for voters, but makes little sense in practice. What the White House wants is a line-item veto over every single aspect of UN operations. But assessed contributions are not an ala carte menu, declared Edwards.

Mandeep S. Tiwana, Secretary General, CIVICUS, a global alliance of civil society organizations, told IPS retreat from international institutions by the Trump Administration is an attack on the legacy of President Franklin D. Roosevelt who gave the people of the United States the New Deal and envisioned a bold framework for the establishment of the UN to overcome the horrors of the Second World War.

“Many of the impacted international institutions were built through the blood, sweat and tears of Americans. Pulling out of these institutions is an affront to their sacrifices and reverses decades of multilateral cooperation on peace, human rights, climate change and sustainable development,” he said.

Meanwhile, the attacks on the UN have continued unabated.

In an interview with Breitbart News, U.S. Representative to the United Nations Ambassador Mike Waltz said, “A quarter of everything the UN does, the United States pays for”.

“Is there money being well spent? I’d say right now, no, because it’s being spent on all of these other woke projects, rather than what it was originally intended to do, what President Trump wants it to do, and what I want it to do, which is focus on peace.”

Historically, the United States has been the largest financial contributor, typically covering around 22% of the UN’s regular budget and up to 28% of the peacekeeping budget.

Still, ironically, the US is also the biggest defaulter. According to the UN’s Administrative and Budgetary Committee, member states currently owe $1.87 billion of the $3.5 billion in mandatory contributions for the current budget cycle.

The former US House Republican Conference Chair Elise Stefanik of New York, a one-time nominee for the post of US Ambassador to the UN, was quoted as saying, “In the UN, Americans see a corrupt, defunct, and paralyzed institution more beholden to bureaucracy, process, and diplomatic niceties than the founding principles of peace, security, and international cooperation laid out in its charter.”

Meanwhile, in a veiled attack on the UN, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said, “What we term the “international system” is now overrun with hundreds of opaque international organizations, many with overlapping mandates, duplicative actions, ineffective outputs, and poor financial and ethical governance.”

Even those that once performed useful functions, he pointed out, have increasingly become inefficient bureaucracies, platforms for politicized activism or instruments contrary to our nation’s best interests, he said.

“Not only do these institutions not deliver results, they obstruct action by those who wish to address these problems. The era of writing blank checks to international bureaucracies is over,” declared Rubio

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Jan 5 2026 (IPS)

The statistics are staggering: while military spending keeps skyrocketing, Official Development Assistance (ODA)– from the rich to some of the world’s poorer nations– has been declining drastically.

According to a Fact Sheet released by the UN last week, the $2.7 trillion allocated in just one year (2024) to global military spending amounted to $334 for every person on the planet; the size of the entire Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of all African countries; more than half the GDP of all Latin American countries; 750 times the 2024 UN regular budget; and almost 13 times the amount of ODA provided by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) in 2024

Over 100 countries increased their military budgets, with the top ten spenders alone accounting for 73% of the total. Despite making up about a quarter of the UN’s Member States and nearly 20% of the world’s population, African nations collectively account for less than 2% of global military spending.

If the current trend continues, warns UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterre, military spending could increase to $3.5 trillion by 2030 and exceed $4.7 trillion, potentially climbing to $6.6 trillion, by 2035. A $6.6 trillion spending is equivalent to almost five times the level at the end of the cold war, six times the lowest global level (1998), and two and a half times the level spent in 2024 ($2.7 trillion).

James E. Jennings, PhD, President, Conscience International, told IPS while the world was celebrating a Happy New Year January 1, those who have read global military budgets for 2026 can only weep.

The recently released UN fact sheet on worldwide spending for weapons and military expenses reveals a fearful future for humanity in the coming decades. “That’s because of the vast disparity between our lust for power and dominance as opposed to our lack of concern for the growing millions of people living in abject poverty,” he said.

Such conditions, he pointed out, guarantee that children who lack clean water and sanitation will suffer from easily curable diseases and have little access to education. “There is a direct connection between buying airplanes, tanks, and bombs, and taking food out of the mouths of babies. Even a tiny percentage of the money spent annually on arms would alleviate world hunger in just a few years.”

Another way of understanding the issue is the global distribution of wealth, disadvantaging the Global South. Health, especially children’s health, is primary. It could be radically transformed by vaccinations and medicines that are readily available and cheap compared to military equipment and technology.

Education is the top prize that can transform lives and societies but is unavailable to many people in the world’s neediest countries. What is most worrisome to those who are paying attention is the fact that military expenditures are rising. Where that will lead if the trend continues is dreadful to contemplate, declared Dr Jennings.

Meanwhile, the UN Fact Sheet says:

Less than 4% ($93 billion) of $2.7 trillion is needed annually to end world hunger by 2030.

· A little over 10% ($285 billion) of $2.7 trillion could fully vaccinate every child.
· $5 trillion could fund 12 years of quality education of every child in low- and lower-middle-income countries.
· Spending $1 billion on the military creates 11,200 jobs, but the same amount creates 26,700 jobs in education, 17,200 in healthcare or 16,800 in clean energy.
· Reinvesting 15% ($387 billion) of the $2.7 trillion is more than enough to cover the annual costs of climate change adaptation in developing countries.
· Each dollar spent on the military generates over twice the greenhouse gas emissions of a dollar invested in civilian sectors.

The 38-membe OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) points out that ODA is currently on “a significant decline”, with major donor countries like the U.S., France, Germany, and the UK cutting aid budgets, leading to projected drops of 9-17% in 2025 after a 9% fall in 2024, impacting the poorest nations and vital services like health.

This marks a sharp reversal after years of growth, driven by domestic spending (like refugee costs) and shifting priorities.

Alice Slater, who serves on the Boards of World BEYOND War and the Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space and a UN NGO Representative for the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, told IPS the UN’s Fact Sheet, starkly illuminating last year’s record high of $2.7 trillion in military expenditures, caused a cascade of devastating consequences to human well-being, the environment, possibilities for avoiding climate collapse, as well as blows to employment, ending hunger and poverty, providing health care, education, and other ills, due to a lack of adequate funding support.

The Fact Sheet, she said, does an admirable job of illustrating the shocking maldistribution of States massive military expenditures and what that money could buy in many instances, such as to end hunger and malnutrition, provide clean water and sanitation, education, environmental remediation, and so much more.

In a message to world leaders last week, Guterres said: ·“As we enter the new year, the world stands at a crossroads. Chaos and uncertainty surround us. People everywhere are asking: Are leaders even listening? Are they ready to act?”

Today, the scale of human suffering is staggering – over one-quarter of humanity lives in areas affected by conflict. More than 200 million people globally need humanitarian assistance, and nearly 120 million people have been forcibly displaced, fleeing war, crises, disasters or persecution.

“As we turn the page on a turbulent year, one fact speaks louder than words: global military spending has soared to $2.7 trillion, growing by almost 10 per cent.”

Yet, as humanitarian crises around the world intensify, global military spending is projected to more than double – from $2.7 trillion in 2024 to an astonishing $6.6 trillion by 2035 – if current trends persist. Data shows that $2.7 trillion is thirteen times the amount of all global development aid combined and is equivalent to the entire Gross Domestic Product of the continent of Africa.

“On this New Year, let’s resolve to get our priorities straight. A safer world begins by investing more in fighting poverty and less in fighting wars. Peace must prevail,” urged Guterres.

In September 2025, the Secretary-General, as requested by UN Member States in the 2024 Pact for the Future, launched a report that revealed a stark imbalance in global spending. Called The Security We Need: Rebalancing Military Spending for a Sustainable and Peaceful Future, the report examines the difficult trade-offs presented by the increasing global military spending, making a powerful case for investing in peace and in people’s futures:

“It’s clear the world has the resources to lift lives, heal the planet, and secure a future of peace and justice,” says Guterres. “In 2026, I call on leaders everywhere: Get serious. Choose people and planet over pain.”

“This New Year, let’s rise together: For justice. For humanity. For peace.”

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Dec 23 2025 (IPS)

The UN Staff Union is on edge — hoping for the best and expecting the worse — as the General Assembly will vote on a proposed programme budget for 2026 by December 31.

The President of the UN Staff Union (UNSU), Narda Cupidore, has listed some of the proposals which will have an impact on staff members, including:

• Proposed decrease of the 2026 regular budget by 15.1%
• A total of 2,681 posts (about 18.8%) proposed for abolishment across the Secretariat, more than half of which are already vacant.
• Administrative functions will be centralized through new Common Administrative Platforms (CAPs) beginning in New York and Bangkok next year.
• Proposed relocation of approximately 173 posts to lower cost duty stations, including Nairobi, Bonn, Valencia, Tunis, and Vienna.

IF the proposed changes are approved by the General Assembly, the following measures are expected to take effect:

• Mitigating measures: reductions in staffing will be managed through vacancy elimination, the early separation programme, lateral reassignments within entities, followed by global placement.
• Downsizing policy: if further staff reductions are required, the downsizing policy will be enacted in accordance with the established rules under ST/AI/2023/1, considering appointment type, performance, and years of service.

WHAT HAPPENS Next…

• December 2025: Await General Assembly resolution
• January – March 2026: mitigating measures
• April 2026 onward: Downsizing policy applied if needed

Early Separation Program (a mitigating measure): Office of Human Resources has advised:

• Rounds 1 and 2 are still open and will not be finalized until January 2026.
• Round 3 is currently active, focused on a specific criterion as outlined in this round.
• Colleagues who expressed interest in the program will receive individual responses confirming approval or non-approval once all rounds of the exercise are closed.

Support for Staff

The Staff Support Framework 2.0 – expected to be available soon – to help navigate upcoming changes, provide structured guidance on prioritizing reassignment over terminations, and minimize involuntary separations.

As the Fifth Committee continues its deliberations in the coming days toward adopting a resolution and approving the budget, the UN Staff Union (UNSU) remains actively engaged in monitoring the negotiations, says Cupidore in a memo to staff members.

“At the same time, we are evaluating the potential implications of these decisions, our entitlements and working conditions”.

Meanwhile, the US State Department is in the process of eliminating over 132 domestic offices, laying-off about 700 federal workers and reducing diplomatic missions overseas.

The proposed changes will also include terminating funding for the UN and some of its agencies, budgetary cuts to the 32-member military alliance, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), and 20 other unidentified international organizations.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Tercer Piso. Source Amnesty International

By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Dec 23 2025 (IPS)

Jeanne Kirkpatrick, a former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, once made a highly debatable distinction between “friendly” right-wing “authoritarian” regimes (which were mostly U.S. and Western allies) and “unfriendly” left-wing “totalitarian” dictatorships (which the U.S. abhorred).

Around the same time, successive U.S. administrations were cozying up to a rash of authoritarian regimes, mostly in the Middle East, widely accused of instituting emergency laws, detaining dissidents, cracking down on the press, torturing political prisoners and rigorously imposing death penalties.

Kirkpatrick’s distinction between user-friendly right-wing regimes and unfriendly left-wing dictators prompted a sarcastic response from her ideological foe at that time, former Secretary of State Cyrus Vance, who shot back: “It seems to me that if you’re on the rack (and being tortured), it doesn’t make any difference if your torturer is right-handed or left-handed.”

Last month, the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, Alice Jill Edwards, warned that rigorous oversight of security and policing trade fairs is necessary to prevent prohibited and inherently abusive law enforcement equipment hitting the market after such items were found on display at Milipol 2025, an arms and security trade fair held in Paris from 18 to 21 November.

“Direct-contact electric shock devices, multiple kinetic impact projectiles and multi-barrel launchers cause unnecessary suffering and ought to be banned,” Edwards said. “Their trade and promotion should be prohibited across all 27 EU Member States and globally.”

Under the EU Anti-Torture Regulation – first introduced in 2006 and strengthened in 2019 – companies are banned from promoting, displaying or trading certain equipment that can be used for torture or ill-treatment. In 2025, the EU further expanded the list of prohibited and controlled law enforcement items, according to a UN press release.

Dr. Simon Adams, President and CEO of the Center for Victims of Torture (CVT), the largest international organization that treats survivors and advocates for an end to torture worldwide, told IPS as the largest torture rehabilitation organization in the world, the Center for Victims of Torture supports the Special Rapporteur and the campaign to stop companies marketing, promoting and selling goods that are designed solely to inflict human suffering.

Torture is a crime under international law and is illegal everywhere and at all times. Companies should not be able to market and trade goods that are routinely abused by security forces to commit human rights violations, or have no purpose other than to inflict torture, he said.

“At CVT we work with traumatized survivors of torture every day. Many are refugees who have come from countries where security forces use the sort of devices that were on sale at the fair. The European Union has been a key partner in the campaign to establish torture-free trade.”

“It is unconscionable that companies are allowed to promote these products inside the EU. It is grotesque that such products even exist. This trade in human cruelty should be completely banned,” declared Adams.

A wide range of equipment previously identified by the UN Special Rapporteur as “inherently abusive” was on display at the fair. Offending equipment found on display or being promoted included direct-contact electric shock weapons (batons, gloves and stun guns), spiked anti-riot shields, ammunition with multiple kinetic impact projectiles, and multi-barrel launchers, according to the UN.

These products were marketed by Brazilian, Chinese, Czech, French, Indian, Israeli, Italian, Kazakh, North Macedonian, South Korean, Turkish and US companies.

Among the new banned items under EU law are aerial systems that deliver “injurious quantities of riot control agents,” yet companies were promoting drones fitted with multi-barrel launchers capable of dispersing large quantities of chemical irritants.

After Milipol organisers were notified of the items, swift action was taken, demanding companies remove catalogue pages and items. Edwards said one state-owned company refused to comply and its stall was shut down.

“The continued promotion of inherently abusive weapons underscores the urgent need for States to adopt my 2023 report recommendations,” the expert said.

While welcoming recent EU steps to strengthen controls, Edwards stressed that regional action alone is insufficient.

“The discoveries made at Milipol show why a global, legally binding Torture-Free Trade Treaty is essential,” the UN Special Rapporteur said. “Without coordinated international regulation, abusive equipment will simply find new markets, new routes and new victims.”

She urged all organisers of security, defence and policing exhibitions worldwide to establish robust monitoring, enforce bans consistently, and cooperate fully with independent investigators.

“Milipol’s response was swift and responsible,” the expert said. “But the fact that banned items were exhibited at all shows that constant vigilance is essential.”

Edwards had raised these issues on previous occasions and will continue to monitor relevant developments.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Former UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, addresses the Security Council warning the Council it risks irrelevance without reform. Credit: UN Photo/Eskinder Debebe 15 December 2025

By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Dec 19 2025 (IPS)

A long-standing proposal going back to 1996—to establish a single non-renewable seven-year term for the Secretary-General of the United Nations—has been resurrected by former UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon.

The original proposal was part of a study sponsored by the Dag Hammarskjold and Ford Foundations. According to the proposal, the seven-year term “ would give the SG the opportunity to undertake far-reaching plans free from undesirable pressures.”

Ban has said a single, nonrenewable seven-year term will strengthen the independence of the office. The current practice of two five-year terms, he said, leaves Secretaries-General “overly dependent on this Council’s Permanent Members for an extension.”

A former Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali of Egypt was deprived of a second five-year term when the US was the only permanent member state to veto his second term despite the fact that he received 14 of the 15 votes in the Security Council.

“As the highest policy-making organ of the United Nations, and as the ultimate appointing body, the General Assembly should adopt a comprehensive resolution establishing a single seven-year term and all key features of an improved process of appointing the Secretary-General,” the study said.

The same seven-year term, according to the 1996 study authored by Sir Brian Urquhart and Erskine Childers, should also apply to heads of UN agencies and UN programmes.

The study was titled “A World in Need of Leadership: Tomorrow’s United Nations. A Fresh Appraisal.” Sir Brian was a former UN Under-Secretary-General (USG) for Special Political Affairs and Childers was a former Senior Advisor to the UN Director-General for Development and International Economic Affairs.

Ambassador Anwarul K. Chowdhury, former Under-Secretary-General and High Representative of the United Nations and Permanent Representative of Bangladesh to the UN, told IPS that, in keeping with the best interest of the operational credibility of the world’s most universal multilateral body with a global mandate, and as a conscientious UN insider, “I believe very strongly and quite comfortably that there is substantive merit in the long-standing, but surprisingly undervalued, proposal to establish a single non-renewable seven-year term of office for the Secretary-General of the United Nations.”

In an op-ed published on 20 June 2011 in IPS on Ban’s second term, and commenting in general on the re-election process, he wrote, “This unclear, closed-door, behind-the-scenes and exclusionary process results in the recommendation of a person who is dreaming of re-election for a second term from the very first day in office.”

Ambassador Chowdhury went on to underscore that “This very human temptation for a second term is so overwhelming, so intoxicating that the incoming secretary-general’s main effort in office is wholly conditioned by this desire.” Keeping fully in perspective the “veto element,” the wishes and inclinations of the P5 get the priority attention of the “Chief Administrative Officer” of the UN.

“I fully agree,” he said, “with the conventional understanding in the corridors of the UN that the debt that an SG accrues from the P5 during his first term for his re-election gets paid off during the second term. This arrangement serves both the secretary-general and the P5 well.”

More so, he noted, because they know full well that the broader membership of the UN is never able to agree to long overdue reforms of the unacceptable electoral process for the head of the secretariat. This encourages the possibility of a lacklustre leader to emerge, particularly if a P5 representative engages in the selection process at the instructions from the capital which is not supportive of the centrality of the UN’s global role.

Asked if the current Secretary-General António Guterres agrees with the proposal, UN deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq told reporters last week:

“Well, the current Secretary-General respects his role as Secretary-General to stay outside of the process of the Member States’ discussions. Obviously, any change in the terms of a Secretary-General would need to be agreed to by the Member States, and he trusts that they will work this out amongst themselves and find a solution.”

Haq said Guterres thinks that there are a number of reform steps that can be taken. Obviously, since he is the sitting Secretary-General, he’s not going to voice his views on this right now, while the Member States are considering it. And of course, you’ve seen his own support for the idea to have the first female Secretary-General. “But again, these are decisions that are not in our hands,” said Haq.

Dr. Palitha Kohona, a former Chief of the UN Treaty Section, told IPS some see merit in extending the term of office of the SG to seven years. But would such an extension add value? An effective SG could always seek re-election under the current set up and the GA has given a second term to most SGs.

The Member States could also refrain from re-electing an ineffective SG. If an ineffective SG were to be given a seven year term, the most important international organization in the world will have to suffer the burden of such an individual for an unfairly long and painful period, he pointed out.

An effective SG, subject to the political and financial constraints that he/she operates under, could achieve much in five years. What is required is the ability to operate in an volatile global environment, superior management skills and the knack for picking excellent staff, especially as USGs and ASGs. The current tendency to accept whomever big powers foist on the SG and to appoint lacklusture performers tends to reflect poorly on the leader of this august body and the Member States pay a heavy price, said Dr Kohona, a former Permanent Representative of Sri Lanka to the UN.

“What is really needed is the institutionalisation of a system that enables the UN to pick potentially efficient performers without the need to depend on whimsies of the P5. Major corporations operate in this manner. Successful performers will be retained for five or ten years. Those who fail will be dropped. The member states will be the best judges, he declared.

Sanam B. Anderlini, Founder and CEO, International Civil Society Action Network (ICAN), told IPS: “I think a 7 year term is an excellent idea – it would enable the SG to be courageous and imaginative in vision and practice. They would not be encumbered with the tasks of currying favour with member states or campaigning for votes for a second term.”

Additionally, with a seven-year horizon, they’d be compelled and motivated to ensure change and impact, because everyone ultimately wishes to have a good legacy, she pointed out.

But the key is ensuring that the selected leaders have the necessary courage, vision and values, she said

The 7-year terms should be staggered so we don’t lose the entire UN systems leadership team in one go. The idea of extending the United Nations Secretary-General’s term in office is a proposal that has been discussed as a reform idea, but the current, standard term remains five years, renewable once, declared Anderlini.

Recounting his IPS op-ed, Ambassador Chowdhury said he had underscored that “Another important idea to ensure independence of the Secretary-General would be to make the office restricted to one term for each incumbent.”

The seven-year term is adequate for any leader worth the name to deliver positive results and show what can be achieved for any global institution. Any change in the tenure of office and in the re-election process will require the amendment of the UN Charter and therefore the concurrence of the P5, said Ambassador Chowdhury, initiator of the UNSCR 1325 as President of the UN Security Council in March 2000, Chairman of the UN General Assembly’s Main Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Matters and Founder of the Global Movement for The Cultural of Peace (GMCoP).

On 30 October 2023, in another op-ed in IPS, Ambassador Chowdhury recommended that “… in the future the Secretary-General would have only one term of seven years, as opposed to the current practice of automatically renewing the Secretary-General’s tenure for a second five-year term, without even evaluating his performance.”

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

The Security Council in session. Credit: UN Photo/Evan Schneider

By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Dec 11 2025 (IPS)

When there was widespread speculation that a UN Under-Secretary-General (USG), a product of two prestigious universities—Oxford and Cambridge—was planning to run for the post of Secretary-General back in the 1980s, I pointedly asked him to confirm or deny the rumor during an interview in the UN delegate’s lounge.

“I don’t think”, he declared, “anyone in his right mind will ever want that job”.

Fast forward to 2026.

As a financially stricken UN is looking for a new Secretary-General, who will take office beginning January 2027, the USG’s remark in a bygone era was a reflection of a disaster waiting to happen.

The current Secretary-General is facing a daunting task battling for the very survival of the UN, with a hostile White House forcing the world body to sharply reduce its staff, slash funding and relocate several UN agencies, moving them out of New York.

The bottom line: the incoming Secretary-General will inherit a virtually devastated United Nations.

Addressing the General Assembly last September, President Trump remarked, “What is the purpose of the United Nations? It’s not even coming close to living up to [its] potential.”

Dismissing the U.N. as an outdated, ineffective organization, he boasted, “I ended seven wars, dealt with the leaders of each and every one of these countries, and never a phone call from the United Nations offering to help in finalizing the deal.”

Whoever is elected, the new UN chief will have to faithfully abide by the ground rules of the Trump administration virtually abandoning what the UN stands for, including racial equality and gender empowerment (DEI)

“Diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) policies that were adopted to address historical and structural injustices are being vilified as unjust,” says Volker Turk, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.

In his 345-page book titled “Unvanquished: A US-UN Saga,” released in 1999, Boutros Boutros-Ghali, a former Secretary-General, points out that although he was accused by Washington of being “too independent” of the US, he eventually did everything in his power to please the Americans.

But when he ran for a second term, the US, which preaches the Western concept of majority rule, exercised its veto even though Boutros-Ghali received 14 of the 15 votes in the Security Council, including the votes of the other four permanent members of the Council, namely the UK, France, Russia and China.

In such circumstances, tradition would demand the dissenting US abstain on the vote and respect the wishes of the overwhelming majority in the Security Council. But the US did not.

Unlike most of his predecessors and successors, Boutros-Ghali refused to blindly play ball with the US despite the fact that he occasionally caved into US pressure at a time when Washington had gained a notoriety for trying to manipulate the world body to protect its own national interests.

Jesselina Rana, UN Advisor at CIVICUS’ UN Hub in New York and the steering committee of the 1 for 8 Billion campaign, told IPS when key international norms are being openly flouted by certain member states and the veto is used to undermine the very principles the UN was built on, will structural reforms alone be enough to restore trust in the institution?”

Can the UN80 process genuinely rebuild trust in multilateralism, she asked, when the process itself has been opaque and has lacked meaningful civil society participation?

“An accountable and transparent Secretary-General selection process requires stronger and more explicit support from member states.”

A process that is open and inclusive of civil society and grounded in feminist leadership will strengthen the UN’s ability to navigate today’s difficult geopolitical conditions and help rebuild trust in multilateralism, she argued.

After 80 years of male leadership, the next Secretary-General should be a woman with a proven record on gender equality, human rights, peace, sustainable development, and multilateralism, declared Rana.

Felix Dodds, Adjunct Professor at the Water Institute, University of North Carolina and Associate Fellow, the Tellus Institute, Boston, who has written extensively on the UN, told IPS the UN is experiencing challenging times, living through what are probably the most difficult times since the Cold War.

It may not be a bad idea to move some UN bodies. UNDP did a lot of that under Helen Clarke—being closer to the people you are working to help, maybe it is a cost-cutting issue, but it may also be something that should have been considered before.

“The new SG will need to be someone Trump allows, as he has a veto,” he pointed out.

“Of the candidates we looked at before, the only one that is realistic is Rebeca Grynspan from UNCTAD. She has shown herself to be a good bureaucrat and has led UNCTAD well, as she did for Costa Rica when she was the Deputy President, said Dodds, City of Bonn International Ambassador.

“We may be looking at a man again,” he said.

Clearly, the new secretary-general taking over in 2027 has a daunting task ahead. Whoever it is will have had to make concessions to the P5 on the size and reach of the UN. The present cuts may be just the first set to come down.

“A UN with a clearer mandate on what it will do may be a result. Stakeholders need to, of course, defend the UN as a critical body for multilateral affairs BUT they must at the same time be putting forward reforms that are simple and strengthen the area they are working on.”

There is no way we can get security reform through—it doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be proposed, but what is realistic in the areas being reformed is that stakeholders and governments can work together on it.

Ultimately, the driving force should be a more effective UN delivering on the ground. Do reform proposals do that? he asked.

“The organization has always worked in a world of political pressures. I agree the body should be a place for dialogue and protection of the most vulnerable. UN80 offers an opportunity for dialogue on realistic proposals. The question is, what are they in the different areas?” he said.

Dr. Stephen Zunes, Professor of Politics and International Studies at the University of San Francisco, where he serves as coordinator of the program in Middle Eastern Studies, told IPS following the Napoleonic Wars, the Council of Europe largely kept the peace until the Central Powers decided it no longer worked for them. The result was World War I.

The League of Nations then set up a framework to keep the peace until the Axis powers decided it no longer worked for them. The result of World War II, he said.

“We are now at a similar crossroads, where the United Nations system is being challenged by both Russia and the United States which–as demonstrated through the invasions of Iraq and Ukraine—no longer feel constrained by the prohibition against aggressive war.”

“The more recent U.S. assaults on the UN are particularly damaging, given the importance of U.S. financial contributions to the UN’s functioning and Washington’s ability in recent weeks to push through resolutions in the UN Security Council seemingly legitimizing illegal Israeli and Moroccan military occupations of their neighbors.”

UN members must be willing to risk the wrath of the Trump administration by standing up for the UN Charter and basic principles of international law. Nothing less than the future of the world body and international peace and security is at stake, declared Dr Zunes.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

A nuclear test is carried out on an island in French Polynesia in 1971. Credit: CTBTO

By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Dec 5 2025 (IPS)

President Donald Trump’s recent announcement to resume nuclear testing rekindles nightmares of a bygone era where military personnel and civilians were exposed to devastating radioactive fallouts.

In the five decades between 1945 and the opening for the signature of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) in 1996, over 2,000 nuclear tests were carried out all over the world. The United States conducted 1,032 tests between 1945 and 1992.

According to published reports and surveys, it was primarily military personnel who participated in U.S. nuclear weapons testing. The U.S. government initially withheld information about the effects of radiation, leading to health problems for many veterans.

And it was not until 1996 that Congress repealed the Nuclear Radiation and Secrecy Agreements Act, which allowed veterans to discuss their experiences without fear of treason charges.

Although a 1998 compensation bill did not pass, the government has since issued an apology to the survivors and their families.

Some civilians were exposed to radioactive fallout from early nuclear tests, like the Trinity test in New Mexico. And like atomic veterans, these civilians also suffered from long-term health effects due to their exposure to radiation, the reports said.

Dr. M.V. Ramana, Professor and Simons Chair in Disarmament, Global and Human Security Director pro tem of the School of Public Policy and Global Affairs at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, told IPS one doesn’t know exactly what kind of nuclear tests might be conducted.

Even though the United States has not ratified the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, in 1963, it did sign and ratify the “Treaty banning nuclear weapon tests in the atmosphere, in outer space and under water,” commonly known as the Partial Test Ban Treaty.

Since then, he pointed out, all of its nuclear tests have been conducted underground. There are two kinds of environmental dangers associated with underground nuclear tests. The first is that radioactive contamination may escape into the atmosphere, either at the time of the explosion or more gradually during routine post-test activities.

“More than half of all tests conducted at the Nevada Test site have led to radioactivity being released to the atmosphere. The second is that the radioactivity left underground makes its way over a long period of time into groundwater or to the surface.”

In 1999, he said, scientists detected plutonium 1.3 kilometers away from a 1968 nuclear weapons test in Nevada. In addition to these environmental dangers, the greater danger is that if the United States resumes nuclear weapon testing, then other countries would follow suit.

“Already, we have seen calls to prepare to resume testing from hawks in other countries, such as India.”

Decades ago, Ramana pointed out, when the US government planned to test nuclear weapons at Bikini atoll, the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF) said, “What should be vaporized is not an obsolete battleship but the whole process of the manufacture of the atomic bomb.”

“That statement is still relevant. We should be shutting down the capacity to build and use nuclear weapons, not refining the ability to carry out mass murder,” declared Dr. Ramana.

Meanwhile, in the five decades between 1945 and the opening for signature of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) in 1996, over 2,000 nuclear tests were carried out all over the world.

• • The United States conducted 1,032 tests between 1945 and 1992.

• • The Soviet Union carried out 715 tests between 1949 and 1990.

• • The United Kingdom carried out 45 tests between 1952 and 1991.

• • France carried out 210 tests between 1960 and 1996.

• • China carried out 45 tests between 1964 and 1996.

• India carried out 1 test in 1974.

Natalie Goldring, Acronym Institute’s representative at the United Nations, told IPS that President Trump’s threat to resume US nuclear testing is remarkably shortsighted and dangerous, even by his impulsive and reckless standards.

“President Trump seems to be making the incorrect assumption that the US government always gets the last move in foreign policy. He attempts to conduct foreign policy by issuing pronouncements, rather than engaging in the hard work of policymaking and diplomacy or even ensuring that his actions are legal.”

In this case, he is apparently assuming that the US government can unilaterally decide to resume nuclear testing without prompting the same actions from other countries, she said.

Proponents of permanent nuclear weapons development and nuclear weapons testing claim that testing preserves the reliability of the arsenal and sends a message of US strength to potential adversaries.

“But the United States already has a robust testing program to ensure the reliability of its nuclear weapons. Rather than demonstrating strength, a US return to nuclear weapons testing could be used as a justification to do the same by other current and prospective nuclear weapons states. In effect, it could be a self-fulfilling prophecy.”

As William Broad recently reported in the New York Times, part of the challenge of interpreting President Trump’s pronouncement on nuclear testing is that it’s not clear what he means. Does he mean full-scale, supercritical testing, or is he talking about testing that produces an extremely small explosion, such as hydronuclear testing?

Either way, the US government would be breaking the testing moratorium that it has observed since 1992, she pointed out.

“Nuclear testing has ramifications and costs in many areas, including human, political, economic, environmental, military, and legal. States with nuclear weapons tend to focus on the perceived military and political aspects of these weapons.”

But they frequently ignore the profound human, economic, and environmental costs for those who were soldiers or civilians at or near test sites or in the areas surrounding those sites. Little attention or funding has been provided to survivors or to cleaning up the land poisoned by nuclear testing, said Goldring.

Rather than resuming nuclear testing, those funds could be used to help remedy the effects of past tests, including reducing some of the human and environmental costs.

Instead of threatening to resume nuclear tests and risking that other countries with nuclear weapons will follow our dangerous example, President Trump could take more constructive actions.

One immediate example is that the last nuclear arms control agreement between the US government and Russia, New START, expires early next year. This agreement limited the number of deployed nuclear weapons for both the United States and Russia and contained useful verification provisions that are unlikely to continue when the agreement expires.

It’s probably too late to negotiate even a simple follow-on agreement, but the US and Russia could still commit to maintaining New START’s limits, said Goldring.

If President Trump really wants to be the peacemaker he claims to be, he could commit the United States to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW).

The TPNW is a comprehensive renunciation of nuclear weapons programs; States commit themselves not to develop, test, produce, acquire, possess, stockpile, use, or threaten to use nuclear weapons.

“Rather than taking us backwards, as President Trump proposes to do, we need to move forward.”

In 1946, Albert Einstein wrote, “The unleashed power of the atom has changed everything save our modes of thinking and we thus drift toward unparalleled catastrophe.”

The TPNW offers a way forward out of this predicament. Testing will perpetuate and exacerbate the human, environmental, and economic costs, among others, she said.

This article is brought to you by IPS NORAM, in collaboration with INPS Japan and Soka Gakkai International, in consultative status with the UN’s Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC).

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

People walk through a destroyed neighbourhood in Gaza City. Credit: UN News

By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Dec 2 2025 (IPS)

The revenues from arms sales and military services by the 100 largest arms-producing companies rose by 5.9 percent in 2024, reaching a record USD 679 billion, according to new data released by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI).

Global arms revenues rose sharply in 2024, as demand was boosted by the wars in Ukraine and Gaza, global and regional geopolitical tensions, and ever-higher military expenditure.

For the first time since 2018, all of the five largest arms companies increased their arms revenues, according to SIPRI, one of the authoritative sources for arms sales and global military spending.

Currently, a rash of armed conflicts and civil wars are taking place in Ukraine, Gaza, Myanmar, Sudan, Iraq, Libya, Morocco, Syria, Yemen, Haiti, the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), Somalia and Western Sahara, among others, triggering a rising demand for arms from governments and rebel forces.

Although the bulk of the global rise was due to companies based in Europe and the United States, there were year-on-year increases in all of the world regions featured in the Top 100. The only exception was Asia and Oceania, where issues within the Chinese arms industry drove down the regional total, according to SIPRI

The surge in revenues and new orders prompted many arms companies to expand production lines, enlarge facilities, establish new subsidiaries or conduct acquisitions.

“Last year global arms revenues reached the highest level ever recorded by SIPRI as producers capitalized on high demand,” said Lorenzo Scarazzato, Researcher with the SIPRI Military Expenditure and Arms Production Programme.

‘Although companies have been building their production capacity, they still face a range of challenges that could affect costs and delivery schedules.’

Of the 26 arms companies in the Top 100 based in Europe (excluding Russia), 23 recorded increasing arms revenues. Their aggregate arms revenues grew by 13 percent to USD 151 billion. This increase was tied to demand stemming from the war in Ukraine and the perceived threat from Russia.

But the rise in arms revenues and military spending also had a devastating impact on civilians, with a rise in death tolls.

As of mid-to-late November 2025, the Gaza Health Ministry reported that over 70,000 Palestinians, mostly civilians, have been killed in the war since October 7, 2023.

But estimates of the death toll in the Russia-Ukraine war vary widely and are difficult to verify, as both sides consider military casualty figures to be state secrets.

Still, the number of Russian military casualties (dead and wounded) is estimated by sources like the UK Ministry of Defense and the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) to be over 1 million, a “stunning and grisly milestone.”

Ukrainian military casualties (killed and wounded) are estimated at approximately 400,000.

Norman Solomon, executive director of the Institute for Public Accuracy and author of “War Made Invisible: How America Hides the Human Toll of Its Military Machine,” told IPS the business of war is the business of lucrative death, and never more so than in 2025.

“The buyers and sellers of high-tech weaponry are in a macabre embrace, and the results can be found on the battlefield, in civilian suffering, and in the less-obvious carnage of depleted resources as children starve while profiteers feast.”

The United States stands out as the world’s biggest arms merchant. No other country comes close. And in recent years, when it comes to putting armaments to aggressively lethal use, Russia has become a standout with its war in Ukraine and Israel has become a standout with its war in Gaza, said Solomon, who is also national director of RootsAction.

“It should be clearly understood that U.S. weapons makers have been deriving tremendous profits from the Ukraine war and from Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza. Those profits will continue as long as the mutual destruction of Ukrainian and Russian lives continues and as long as Israel maintains its policies of destroying the lives of Palestinian civilians.

“In a world where several countries are major arms exporters, all of whom should be condemned for their activities, the United States is far and away the leader in murderous commerce,” he pointed out.

The fact that the U.S. excels at such commerce is a marker for a moral corruption built into the country’s political economy and power structure of governance. Opposition movements, nonviolent and determined, will be essential to forcing an end to what Martin Luther King Jr. called “the madness of militarism,” he declared.

Dr. Simon Adams, international human rights expert and President and CEO of the Center for Victims of Torture, told IPS in this new age of impunity, increased conflict and creeping authoritarianism in so many parts of the world, there has been a sickening increase in global arms sales.

The guns, drones, missiles and other weapons are coming from the major arms manufacturing countries and companies, but it is civilians in Ukraine, Gaza, Sudan and elsewhere who pay with their lives, he said.

“There is a direct correlation between the increase in the global arms trade and the fact that 123 million people are currently displaced in the world – the highest number since the Second World War.”

“We need governments to invest more in humanitarian solutions to global problems, not spend billions of dollars more every year on the manufacture and marketing of shiny new killing machines.”

“I long for the day when the arms trader will be seen like a slave trader, sex trafficker or drug dealer – as an international outlaw and pariah. As someone involved in an immoral criminal enterprise that is antithetical to human progress,” he declared.

Asked for a response, UN Spokesperson Stephane Dujarric told reporters December 1 about the
“obscene amount of money that is going to weapon sales compared to the struggle that we face every single day trying to fund our humanitarian operations.”

“We understand that Member States need to defend themselves and the need for military. But I think if you do a compare and contrast the amount of money that is flowing into that sector as opposed to the amount of money that is being sucked out of the humanitarian and development sectors, it should give us all food for thought,” he declared.

Meanwhile, in 2024 the combined arms revenues of US arms companies in the Top 100 grew by 3.8 percent to reach USD 334 billion, with 30 out of the 39 US companies in the ranking increasing their arms revenues, according to SIPRI.

These included major arms producers such as Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman and General Dynamics.

However, widespread delays and budget overruns continue to plague development and production in key US-led programmes such as the F-35 combat aircraft, the Columbia-class submarine and the Sentinel intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM).

Several of the largest arms producers in the US are affected by overruns, raising uncertainty about when major new weapon systems and upgrades to existing ones can be delivered and deployed.

‘The delays and rising costs will inevitably impact US military planning and military spending,’ said Xiao Liang, Researcher with the SIPRI Military Expenditure and Arms Production Programme.

‘This could have knock-on effects on the US government’s efforts to cut excessive military spending and improve budget efficiency.’

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

When the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution to designate 25 May as World Football Day. Credit: UN Photo/Loey Felipe

By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Nov 28 2025 (IPS)

The 193-member General Assembly, the UN’s highest policy-making body, routinely designates “International Days” and “World Days” on a wide range of subjects and events—from the sublime to the ridiculous—described as “a sudden shift from something grand and awe-inspiring to something silly and unimportant.

The commemorations range from International Women’s Day and the International Day to Combat Islamophobia to International Moon Day and World Bicycle Day (not forgetting World Tuna Day, World Bee Day, International Day of Potato, World Horse Day, World Pulses Day and International Day of the Arabian Leopard).

According to the UN, the world body observes 218 international days annually (and counting).

One of the first designations came from the UN General Assembly’s declaration in 1947 that 24 October should be celebrated as United Nations Day, the anniversary of the adoption of the UN Charter that founded the Organization.

Since then, UN Member States have proposed more than 200 designations, presenting draft resolutions to the General Assembly so the entire membership, representing 193 nations, can vote.

But a new resolution aimed at revitalizing the work of the General Assembly “notes with concern the significant increase in the number of proposals to proclaim international days, weeks, months, years or decades.”

The resolution decides, on a trial basis, to put on hold consideration of new proposals for international days, weeks, months, years and decades during the eighty-first and eighty-second sessions.

The resolution also requests the President of the General Assembly, effective from the eighty-first session in 2026, to group all proclamation requests for international commemoration into a single resolution per agenda item, where each proposed commemoration contains its own operative paragraph focused on its establishment.

The upcoming International Days in March 2026 include:
1 March – World Seagrass Day
1 March – United Nations Zero Discrimination Day
3 March – International Day for Ear and Hearing Loss
3 March – World Wildlife Day
5 March – International Day for Disarmament and Non-Proliferation Awareness
8 March – International Women’s Day
10 March – International Day of Women Judges
15 March – International Day to combat Islamophobia
20 March – International Day of Happiness
20 March – French Language Day
21 March – International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination
21 March – World Poetry Day
21 March – International Nowruz Day
21 March – World Down Syndrome Day
21 March – International Day of Forests
21 March – World Day of Glaciers
22 March – World Water Day
23 March – World Meteorological Day
24 March – World Tuberculosis Day
24 March – International Day for the Right to the Truth concerning Gross Human Rights
25 March – International Day of Remembrance of the Victims of Slavery
25 March – International Day of Solidarity with Detained and Missing Staff Members
30 March – International Day of Zero Waste

The list for December includes:
01 Dec – World AIDS Day
02 Dec – International Day for the Abolition of Slavery (A/RES/317(IV)
03 Dec – International Day of Persons with Disabilities (A/RES/47/3)
04 Dec – International Day of Banks (A/RES/74/245)
04 Dec – International Day Against Unilateral Coercive Measures (A/RES/79/293)
05 Dec – International Volunteer Day for Economic and Social Development (A/RES/40/212)
05 Dec – World Soil Day (A/RES/68/232)
07 Dec – International Civil Aviation Day (A/RES/51/33)
09 Dec – International Day of Commemoration and Dignity of the Victims of the Crime of Genocide and of the Prevention of this Crime (A/RES/69/323)
09 Dec – International Anti-Corruption Day (A/RES/58/4)
10 Dec – Human Rights Day (A/RES/423 (V)
11 Dec – International Mountain Day (A/RES/57/245)
12 Dec – International Day of Neutrality (A/RES/71/275)
12 Dec – International Universal Health Coverage Day (A/RES/72/138)
18 Dec – International Migrants Day (A/RES/55/93)
18 Dec – Arabic Language Day
20 Dec – International Human Solidarity Day (A/RES/60/209)
21 Dec – World Meditation Day (A/RES/79/137)
21 Dec – World Basketball Day (A/RES/77/324)
27 Dec – International Day of Epidemic Preparedness (A/RES/75/27)

International Criminal Court. Credit: UN Photo/Rick Bajornas

By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Nov 27 2025 (IPS)

The US sanctions on the International Criminal Court (ICC) have intensified the rigid isolation of judges and officials of the Court based in The Hague, Netherlands.

According to an interview with the French judge Nicolas Guillou, published in Le Monde, ICC judges are also being refused access to American websites and credit cards.

“The sanctions, imposed by the United States after the ICC issued arrest warrants for Israeli officials accused of war crimes in Gaza, have severely impacted the daily lives and professional operations of the sanctioned individuals”.

Judge Guillou has described his situation as being “economically banned across most of the planet,” forcing him into a lifestyle reminiscent of the pre-internet era.

Asked for a response, UN Spokesperson Stephane Dujarric told reporters: “Sadly, he’s not the only person linked to the ICC who’s been placed under unilateral sanctions.”

As you know, the ICC is separate from the UN Secretariat. “That being said, we believe that the International Criminal Court is a very important element of the international justice system. It was set up by Member States. We don’t believe that its members should be targeted by unilateral sanctions, which as I think, as the article says and as we know, have a deep impact on people and their families.”

ICC Deputy Prosecutor Nazhat Shameem Khan, who addressed the Security Council on the Situation in Libya on November 25, also focused on life under US sanctions.

The progress towards justice in Libya, she pointed out, has been delivered despite what are also “unprecedented headwinds faced by the Court”.

“I must be clear that coercive measures and acts of intimidation against the ICC, civil society and other partners of justice do not serve anyone other than those who wish to benefit from impunity in Libya and in all situations that we address.”

It is the victims of murder, sexual violence, torture and the other most serious crimes addressed by our Court that stand to lose the most from these coercive actions.

“I firmly believe that is not a position that is welcomed by any member of this (Security) Council, and it is my sincere hope that we can rebuild a common ground between us for collective, effective action against atrocity crimes,” declared Khan.

Meanwhile, the International Bar Association (IBA) has condemned the imposition of additional sanctions against ICC judges and officials by the US administration as an attack against the global rule of law and the independence of judges, and calls on all ICC States Parties to take actions to protect the Court.

IBA President Jaime Carey is quoted as saying: ‘Judges and prosecutors must be able to carry out their work without fear of retribution. The IBA continues to stand for the independence of judges and lawyers, a fundamental principle of the rule of law.’

Dr. Alon Ben-Meir, a retired professor of international relations, most recently at the Center for Global Affairs at New York University (NYU), told IPS the US imposed sanctions on two ICC trial judges, Nicolas Guillou and Kimberly Prost, and against two Deputy Prosecutors, Nazhat Shameem Khan and Mame Mandiaye Niang.

They were accused of supporting “illegitimate ICC actions against Israel, including upholding the ICC’s arrest warrants targeting Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Gallant, since they assumed leadership for the ICC’s Office of the Prosecutor.” The sanctions ban the four from entering the US and block their US assets.

While the IBA has condemned the sanctions against ICC judges and officials as an attack on the global rule of law and judges’ independence and called on all ICC States Parties to take actions to protect the Court, several other measures can be taken to inhibit, if not stop, Trump from continuously using the power of his office to serve his ego and his misguided political agenda, he said.

First, other countries and international bodies can put collective diplomatic pressure on the US to reverse or reconsider these sanctions. This may involve negotiations or leveraging alliances to show that this kind of punitive action isn’t widely supported.

Second, the International Criminal Court itself, or other international legal bodies, might issue statements condemning the sanctions or seek support from other member states. Although the ICC doesn’t have direct enforcement power over US policies, it can still rally international opinion and try to create global pushback.

Third, on the US side, Congress could raise domestic legal and political challenges if there’s significant opposition within the US; those sanctions could be challenged or eventually reversed. With the court of public opinion on their side, sometimes, just the threat of political backlash can make the Trump administration reconsider.

Fourth, the IBA should urge other international legal organizations or human rights groups to create a broader coalition of support. By doing so, they can amplify pressure on the US government and show that the legal community worldwide stands firmly against such sanctions.

Fifth, the IBA can engage in direct advocacy with other governments to raise this issue at diplomatic forums such as the United Nations or other international gatherings. Essentially, it can continue to use its platform to advocate for broader coalitions of support, keep the issue in the spotlight, and secure direct support to overturn US policy and help generate international momentum.

In short, it’s usually a mix of international diplomatic pressure and domestic US political or legal checks that could be used to push back against this kind of measure. Obviously, none of these measures is easy to implement; nevertheless, they are the main avenues to consider.

James E. Jennings, President, Conscience International, told IPS the Trump Administration in Washington is good at two things: chest thumping and distracting attention from the main issue at hand. The White House has now vindictively added fresh sanctions on judges at the International Criminal Court (ICC). And why? To defend Israeli impunity from charges of war crimes and worse in Gaza.

For the US to use the club of restrictive sanctions on a group of judges who are simply trying to honor humanity’s legal protections is a kind of vindictiveness akin to madness. This irrational action weakens global humanity’s legal protections. Everybody on earth has less safety and security if international law is flouted in such a way. The court is a vital component fostering international justice and peace”, said Jennings.

Federica D’Alessandra, Co-Chair of the International Bar Association’s Rule of Law Forum, said that “The measure has brought the tribunal’s day-to-day operations to a near standstill, raising existential concerns about its future.”

Trump, for years a practitioner of the use of fear for making his enemies back down, is trying to intimidate the judges by Mafia-like behavior. Although it won’t work in the long run because Trump will not be around forever, the strategy is working presently to delay, delay, delay justice.

Justice delayed, according to a well-known slogan, might very well be in this case justice denied. By slapping sanctions on the four ICC judges, Trump and his minions have thrown sand in the wheels of international accountability.

Even though the technique is contra bonos mores (opposed to decent morality) as long ago enacted in Roman Law, It might work in this case because it threatens to gum up the works of international order, he pointed out.

“International law is the only mechanism that can truly regulate the bloody tooth and claw of the natural order. Watch a few videos of apex predators at work in the jungle and you’ll understand what damage an unregulated dictatorship like Russia’s can do to civilian life and infrastructure in both Ukraine and Russia. Israel’s “mad dog” Likud military regime is even worse—because Russia at least has not attacked six nations,” declared Jennings.

Meanwhile, specific impacts, according to an AI Overview, include:

• Financial Services: All accounts with major US credit card companies like Visa, Mastercard, and American Express have been deactivated. Some non-American banks have also closed their accounts due to the global reach of US sanctions.
• Online Services: Access to accounts with American tech and e-commerce companies has been terminated. This includes services such as Amazon, Google, Apple, Airbnb, and PayPal.
• Travel and Booking: Online reservations for hotels and travel services have been canceled. For example, a hotel booking made on Expedia for a location within France was canceled hours later due to the sanctions.
• General Commerce: Online commerce has become nearly impossible because one cannot know if a product or its packaging involves an American entity.

These measures effectively prohibit any American person, company, or their foreign subsidiaries from providing services to the sanctioned individuals without authorization from the Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC).

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

The UN General Assembly in session. Credit: UN Photo/Manuel Elias

By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Nov 21 2025 (IPS)

The 193-member General Assembly (GA), the UN’s highest policy-making body, has long been the repository for scores of long-winded outdated resolutions accumulated over several decades– and lying in cold storage.

As part of the proposed restructuring of the United Nations, which is facing a severe liquidity crisis, there is now a move to streamline and revitalize the General Assembly which has been mired in a bureaucratic backlog.

The President of the General Assembly (PGA), Annalena Baerbock, has called on each Main Committee to review its working methods and propose concrete measures to enhance efficiency, including:

• Merging similar agenda items to avoid repetition;
• Reducing the frequency, length and number of resolutions;
• Using biennial or triennial cycles where appropriate;
• Limiting explanations of vote to five minutes; and
• Simplifying adoption procedures — one gavel, one decision, all texts.

These recommendations, mostly spelled out in a recent resolution, would help re-shape the General Assembly to respond to global challenges with agility and coherence. But unless these reforms are implemented, they remain just words on paper, just another resolution.

“Business as usual will not suffice. We need fewer repetitive resolutions, shorter debates, and smarter scheduling. No more ‘resolutions for resolutions’ sake,” the PGA said.

“We cannot preach on Sunday that we need fewer resolutions, then proceed to submit one for consideration on Monday. And this is, unfortunately, taking place”, she warned.

Dr Palitha Kohona, a former Chief of the UN Treaty Section and one-time Permanent Representative of Sri Lanka to the United Nations, told IPS the UN is burdened under a heavy baggage of resolutions piled up over 80 years.

“Many are no longer relevant, others are superfluous, and some repetitive. Given its current perilous financial situation, it would be appropriate for each department and office to review rigorously the resolutions under their purview and identify those that could be terminated.”

This, he said, may be done through an omnibus resolution. Some might require delicate negotiations with member states which might claim ownership to resolutions that they had proposed. Sensitively, handled, this could deliver considerable financial and staffing dividends.

New resolutions, he pointed out, should be vetted carefully to avoid redundancies. UN staff could proactively assist in this process. Even where resolutions are to be implemented within existing resource allocations, there will be some cost involved, including time.

Where a proposed resolution could not be implemented due to resource constraints, it should be vetoed from the beginning, said Dr Kohona, who until recently, was Sri Lanka’s Ambassador to the People’s Republic of China.

Action officers should be located or moved to an office where a resolution is most likely to be implemented and it would be most effective. For example, the responsibility for implementing UNDP-related resolutions should be allocated to Nairobi, he proposed. Peacekeeping should also be moved to Nairobi as most peacekeeping now happens in Africa, he declared.

Baerbock said: “We have seen the Main Committees put forward resolutions for three-day conferences, with no budget attached, fully aware of the fiscal situation we are debating at the same moment. We have seen over 160 sides events during High-Level Week, despite the call for less, or the call by some, for no side events at all”.

“And we have seen, already, three or four high-level meetings submitted for consideration for the 81st High-Level Week (next year), with four for each of the 82nd and 83rd, despite the decision of this Assembly – so by all of us – to limit this to a maximum of three.”

“While we all want to protect the things we care about, each of us must make concessions in this time of reform”, she declared.

Dr. Purnima Mane, a former Deputy Executive Director (Programme) and UN Assistant-Secretary-General (ASG) at the UN Population Fund (UNFPA), told IPS the major ongoing effort to review the working methods of each of the Committees of the UN GA and enhance their efficiency is certainly laudable.

It is a golden opportunity to challenge some of the so-called ‘givens’ of the ways in which the GA functions and focus on what matters in a streamlined fashion.

The currently proposed solutions however are somewhat peripheral even if they indicate a desire for change. One of the major problems faced by the Committees is the range of issues taken on without clear prioritization including a lack of focus on neglected, key issues. And the absence of a sense of urgency, she pointed out

“The suggestions offered touch on enhancing efficiency of working but avoid tougher issues perhaps due to lack of time and sometimes will on the part of some members to take the risk of proposing solutions which might necessitate dismantling of well-entrenched methods of working”.

Another barrier, she said, might be concerns about potential difficulties that are likely to be experienced in getting agreement on these methods and more so the possibility of limited involvement by member states in their implementation.

“Perhaps starting small and identifying possibly achievable objectives for how the committees are run and managed might be a good beginning, but without the commitment of member States to the issues being prioritized and to implement the resolutions being proposed, all this change and effort is unlikely to achieve any benefits, including saving of resources”, she said.

Reducing agenda items and avoiding repetitive resolutions and endless debates are all a good start but it requires the will of the member states to implement these resolutions, once passed, she added.

And while the will to implement is understood as a given, in reality that is exactly where the problem sometimes lies. How to encourage and ensure implementation is really the true challenge, said Dr Mane, a former President and CEO of Pathfinder International.

Andreas Bummel, co-founder and Executive Director of Democracy Without Borders, told IPS ironically, the issue of revitalizing the General Assembly itself has become a ritualistic item.

“Tackling the number of annual resolutions and avoiding useless repetition year after year is a no-brainer. This should have been implemented long ago. But deeper changes are needed”.

For instance, he said, there needs to be continuity and institutional memory in the office of the President of the General Assembly. It should be a two-year tenure and receive proper funding.

Further, by creating a Parliamentary Assembly, the instrument of Citizens’ Initiative and Citizens’ Assemblies, the General Assembly can become a center of innovation and inclusion for the entire UN system. This should be on the agenda.

Meanwhile, revitalization is also being extended to the Office of the President of the General Assembly (OPGA).

The 80th session, Baerbock said, benefited from an early, seamless handover from the 79th — allowing us to hit the ground running. Yet the volume of work remains immense.

“Our High-Level Week featured over seven major meetings in just a few days;
The remainder of the session will see nearly twenty intergovernmental processes and multiple mandated High-Level Meetings; And the total number of resolutions has barely changed — many nearly identical to those of past sessions.”

But this is not sustainable, she said. And it’s contradicting the call from smaller missions that they cannot be in three meetings at the same time.

Transitions matter. Preparation matters. “We must ensure each presidency is set up for success”.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

CTBTO Executive Secretary Robert Floyd addressing staff, Vienna International Centre, Vienna, Austria, 2023. Credit: CTBTO Preparatory Commission

By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Nov 12 2025 (IPS)

The US took another step backward –to break ranks with the United Nations– when it voted against a draft resolution calling for the entry into force of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT).

The negative vote followed an announcement by President Trump last month that the US plans to resume nuclear testing after a 33-year hiatus. The US stood alone on the UN vote, which was supported by almost all member States in the General Assembly’s First Committee.

The resolution was adopted by an overwhelming majority: with 168 votes in favor, with one against (United States) and 3 abstentions (India, Mauritius, Syria).

During Trump’s first term, the US abstained on the vote. And in other years they had been voting in favour.

Jackie Cabasso, Executive Director, Western States Legal Foundation, which monitors and analyzes U.S. nuclear weapons programs and policies, told IPS the chaos and uncertainty arose from Trump’s factually-challenged social media post that “because of other countries testing programs, I have instructed the Department of War to start testing our Nuclear Weapons on an equal basis.”

The U.S. government’s first ever “No” vote, on the annual UN resolution in support of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), raises further troubling questions about U.S. intentions.

Trump did not specify whether he meant explosive nuclear testing, missile tests, or something else. Russia and China are not conducting explosive nuclear tests, so the U.S. has no basis to respond in kind. They are conducting missile tests, but so is the United States, Cabasso pointed out.

In fact, she said, the U.S. conducted a “routine” test of an unarmed Intercontinental Ballistic Missile on November 5. The Department of Defense (now, Department of War) is responsible for missile tests, but it is the Department of Energy that is responsible for preparation for explosive nuclear testing.

Trump’s announcement was followed by mixed signals.

On November 2, Energy Secretary Chris Wright sought to explain Trump’s post when he told Fox News “I think the tests we’re talking about right now are system tests. These are not nuclear explosions. These are what we call non-critical explosions.”

The headline in a New York Times article was dead on target: Trump pushes Tests with a Nuclear Bang: A Top Aide Says Non-nuclear”.

The waters were further muddied, said Cabasso, by Trump’s unsubstantiated allegations in an interview with 60 Minutes (recorded October 31 but aired November 2) that Russia and China have been secretly conducting explosive nuclear tests deep underground.

In a written statement explaining its General Assembly vote, the U.S. – the only country to cast a No vote – stated, “The United States voted No…. because several paragraphs are inconsistent with U.S. policy or are undergoing policy review…. The United States is not currently pursuing CTBT ratification and therefore cannot support calls for ratification and entry into force.”

Of the other nuclear-armed states, the Russian Federation, China, France, United Kingdom, Israel, and Pakistan voted Yes. India abstained, and North Korea did not vote. Thus, the United States distinguished itself as a “rogue” nuclear armed State.

Jonathan Granoff, President, Global Security Institute, told IPS “calling the statement dumb and dumber does not further the argument that such a resumption of nuclear weapons testing would be contrary to promises made to induce indefinite extension of the NPT, justify further more sophisticated weapons developments in violation of the good faith duties to pursue disarmament under the NPT, end the US advantage of knowing more because it has tested more, upgrade the salience of the use and threat of use of nuclear weapons as legitimate tools of communication amongst nations, lead to increased spending on developing weapons which destroy the user as well as adversaries if used, and stimulate greater international fear and instability.“

“We critically need to develop trust and cooperation to, inter alia, protect the oceans and the climate, end the scourge of corruption stealing between two and four trillion from the world’s productive economies, stop the creation and production of new and even more dangerous weapons as we amplify adversity, ignore preparation for the inevitable next pandemic, eliminate poverty and generally pursue the sanity of human security rather than perpetual instability and the dangerous belief that by madness, mistakes by machines or humans, or design we will not lead ourselves into destroying civilization through the use of these horrific devices,” he said.

Elaborating further, Cabasso pointed out that under the 1980 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a State is obliged to refrain from acts which would defeat the object and purpose of a treaty when it has signed the treaty.

The United States, Russia and China have all signed but not ratified the CTBT. Russia withdrew its ratification in 2023 to maintain parity with the U.S. The three countries moratoria on nuclear explosive testing until now are consistent with the intent of the CTBT, but Trump’s statements and the U.S. vote in the General Assembly call this commitment into question.

Indicating just how dangerous and uncertain this situation is, Russian President Vladimir Putin, in response, has ordered officials to draft proposals for a possible test of nuclear weapons.

Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov was quoted in TASS, saying “In order to come to a conclusion about the advisability of beginning preparations for such tests, it will take exactly as much time as it takes for us to fully understand the intentions of the United States of America.”

“As we continue to advocate for nuclear risk reduction and the global elimination of nuclear weapons”, said Cabasso, “we must remain vigilant that the option of explosive nuclear weapons testing remains off the table”.

The United States should reverse course, commit to a permanent cessation of explosive nuclear weapons testing, ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and invite other nuclear armed states to follow suit. This would be a huge contribution to long term prospects for international peace and security, she declared.

According to the Washington-based Arms Control Association (ACA), if the United States resumes its nuclear testing, other countries, such as Russia, North Korea, and perhaps China, will likely follow suit, escalating the nuclear arms race, and increasing global tensions.

In response to Trump’s rhetoric, Representative. Dina Titus (Democrat-Nevada.) has introduced the Renewing Efforts to Suspend Testing and Reinforce Arms Control Initiatives Now (RESTRAIN) Act (H.R. 5894) which creates “a prohibition of explosive nuclear testing while simultaneously preventing any funding from going toward the Trump Administration’s effort to conduct explosive nuclear tests.”

And Senator Ed Markey (Democrat-Massachusetts) has introduced companion legislation in the Senate as the No Nuclear Testing Act (S. 3090) to block renewed testing and has called on the Senate to approve ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.

In its appeal, ACA says: “We encourage you to reach out to your Member of Congress this week and tell them to block the resumption of nuclear explosive testing including by co-sponsoring the “RESTRAIN Act” and “No Nuclear Testing Act.”

ACA has been at the forefront of the effort to halt nuclear weapons testing for decades.

“Since Trump’s call for renewed nuclear testing, we have flown into action to get our message out, to rally Congressional opposition, to organize with other civil society organizations, and mobilize international opposition to the resumption of nuclear testing by any nation.”

This article is brought to you by IPS NORAM in collabolation with INPS Japan amd Soka Gakkai International, in consultative status with the UN’s Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC).

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Credit: United Nations

By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Nov 7 2025 (IPS)

“Has the world given up fighting climate change?” was a rhetorical question posed recently by the New York Times, perhaps with a degree of sarcasm.

It might look that way, says Christiana Figueres, a founding partner of the nongovernmental organization Global Optimism, “as US president Donald Trump blusters about fossil fuel, Bill Gates prioritizes children’s health over climate protection, and oil and gas companies plan decades of higher production.”

But that’s far from the whole picture, said Figueres, pointing out that the overwhelming majority of the world’s people — 80 to 89%, as Covering Climate Now partner newsrooms have been reporting — want stronger climate action.

Clean energy technologies are attracting twice as much investment as fossil fuels, and solar power and regenerative agriculture are surging across the Global South, she said.

Meanwhile, the United States will not send any high-level officials to the COP30, according to the White House.

John Noel, campaigner with Greenpeace International, told IPS the current administration is ceding leadership and leverage over the clean energy future to other countries.

“It is tragic, but not surprising. But for those of us heading to Belem from the United States, we are on solid ground with public opinion in broad support of the Paris Agreement and are more committed than ever.”

There are avenues, he pointed out, for climate ambition at the subnational level, such as ‘polluter pay’ mechanisms and state incentives for clean energy during the federal lapse in support.

“Global leaders at COP30 must move forward to adopt ambitious climate targets, end global deforestation by 2030, and advance a just energy transition and climate action must continue on” Noel declared.

Addressing the plenary of leaders at the Belem Climate Summit, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said November 6 “the hard truth is that we have failed to ensure we remain below 1.5 degrees.”

“Science now tells us that a temporary overshoot beyond the 1.5 limit – starting at the latest in the early 2030s – is inevitable. We need a paradigm shift to limit this overshoot’s magnitude and duration and quickly drive it down”.

Even a temporary overshoot will have dramatic consequences. It could push ecosystems past irreversible tipping points, expose billions to unlivable conditions, and amplify threats to peace and security.

Every fraction of a degree means more hunger, displacement, and loss – especially for those least responsible. This is moral failure – and deadly negligence, he warned.

The United Nations, however, will not give up on the 1.5 degrees goal, he declared.

While clean energy technology is rapidly progressing, political will is seen as weakening, and current efforts are insufficient to prevent significant warming. For example, despite a pledge to cut methane emissions, a new U.N. report indicates the goal will likely not be met.

Anuradha Mittal, Executive Director, The Oakland Institute, told IPS people must be very concerned that governments, especially Western countries that bear most of the responsibility for the climate crisis, are far from fulfilling their commitments in terms of decreased reduction of GHG, and far from assisting countries with adequate levels of financial assistance for mitigation and adaptation.

“It should be as concerning that the same governments, and prominent financial institutions like the World Bank, are promoting false climate solutions such as carbon markets, which have been proven to be totally ineffective at reducing emissions” she said.

Moreover, it must be clear for everyone that the new mining rush “we are witnessing for so-called critical minerals has nothing to do with the energy transition but rather with the global competition over minerals for various industries such as military, communication technologies, as well as electric vehicles”.

The massive amount of minerals such as lithium and cobalt will be impossible to supply without creating another environmental and human crisis. It is time for governments to make responsible choices towards a real energy transition and stop expanding sectors such as the military that divert public resources and contribute greatly to emissions, she pointed out.

It is widely documented that simply replacing existing gas-powered cars with electric vehicles is impossible. If today’s demand for EVs is projected to 2050, the lithium requirements of the US EV market alone would require triple the amount of lithium currently produced for the entire world.

“We need aggressive policies to reduce the number and size of personal vehicles and deploy effective public infrastructures and other low-carbon means of transportation” declared Mittal.

Speaking a press conference in Qatar November 4, Guterres said governments must arrive at the upcoming COP30 meeting in Brazil with concrete plans to slash their own emissions over the next decade while also delivering climate justice to those on the frontlines of a crisis they did little to cause.

“Just look at Jamaica” he said, referring to the catastrophic devastation caused last week by Hurricane Melissa.

The clean energy revolution means it is possible to cut emissions while growing economies. But developing countries still lack the finance and technologies needed to support these transitions.

In Brazil, countries must agree on a credible plan to mobilize $1.3 trillion annually in climate finance by 2035 for developing countries, he said.

“Developed countries must honour their commitment to double finance for adaptation to at least $40 billion this year. And the Loss and Damage Fund needs to be capitalized with significant contributions.”

COP30 in Belém must be the turning point – where the world delivers a bold and credible response plan to close the ambition and implementation gaps, he said.

“To mobilize the 1.3 US trillion dollars a year by 2035 in climate finance for developing countries; And to advance climate justice for all. The path to 1.5 degrees is narrow – but open.
Let us accelerate to keep that path alive for people, for the planet, and for our common future,” declared Guterres.

Meanwhile New research by Oxfam and CARE Climate Justice Centre, finds developing countries are now paying more back to wealthy nations for climate finance loans than they receive- for every 5 dollars they receive they are paying 7 dollars back. 65% of funding is delivered in the form of loans.

This form of crisis profiteering by rich countries is worsening debt burdens and hindering climate action. Compounding this failure, deep cuts to foreign aid threaten to slash climate finance further, betraying the world’s poorest communities who are facing the brunt of escalating climate disasters, says the joint report.

Some key findings of the report:

• Rich countries claim to have mobilized $116 billion in climate finance 2022, but the true value is only around $28-35 billion, less than a third of the pledged amount.
• Nearly two thirds of climate finance was made as loans, often at standard rates of interest without concessions. As a result, climate finance is adding more each year to developing countries’ debt, which now stands at $3.3 trillion. Countries like France, Japan, and Italy are among the worst culprits.
• Least Developed Countries got only 19.5% and Small Island Developing States 2.9% of total public climate finance over 2021-2022 and half of that was in the form of loans they have to repay. 
• Developed nations are profiting from these loans, with repayments outstripping disbursements. In 2022, developing countries received $62 billion in climate loans. We estimate these loans to lead to repayments of up to $88 billion, resulting in a 42% “profit” for creditors.
• Only 3% of finance specifically aimed at enhancing gender equality, despite the climate crisis disproportionately impacting women and girls.

“Rich countries are treating the climate crisis as a business opportunity, not a moral obligation,” said Oxfam’s Climate Policy Lead, Nafkote Dabi. “They are lending money to the very people they have historically harmed, trapping vulnerable nations in a cycle of debt. This is a form of crisis profiteering.”

This failure is occurring as rich countries are conducting the most vicious foreign aid cuts since the 1960s. Data by the OECD data shows a 9% drop in 2024, with 2025 projections signalling a further 9–17% cut.

As the impacts of fossil fuelled climate disasters intensify —displacing millions of people in the Horn of Africa, battering 13 million more in the Philippines, and flooding 600,000 people in Brazil in 2024 alone – communities in low-income countries are left with fewer resources to adapt to the rapidly changing climate, according to the study.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Credit: UN Photo/Loey Felipe

By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Oct 31 2025 (IPS)

The United States, the largest single contributor to the UN budget, is using its financial clout to threaten the United Nations by cutting off funds and withdrawing from several UN agencies.

In an interview with Breitbart News U.S. Representative to the United Nations, Ambassador Mike Waltz said last week “a quarter of everything the UN does, the United States pays for”.

“Is there money being well spent? I’d say right now, no, because it’s being spent on all of these other woke projects, rather than what it was originally intended to do, what President Trump wants it to do, and what I want it to do, which is focus on peace.”

Historically, the United States has been the largest financial contributor, typically covering around 22% of the UN’s regular budget and up to 28% of the peacekeeping budget.

Still, ironically, the US is also the biggest defaulter. According to the UN’s Administrative and Budgetar Committee, member states currently owe $1.87 billion of the $3.5 billion in mandatory contributions for the current budget cycle.

And the US accounts for $1.5 billion of the outstanding balance.

Speaking to reporters in Kuala Lumpur last week, Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said: “We are not reforming the UN because of the liquidity crisis that is largely due to the reduction of payments from one main contributor, the United States”.

“What we are doing is recognizing that we can improve, that we can be more efficient, more cost-effective, more able to provide in full respect of our mandates to the people we care for in a more efficient way”.

“We are doing a number of reforms, making the Organization leaner but more effective. And that is the reason why there will be a number of reductions of positions in the Secretariat, but not the same everywhere.”

“And in particular, everything that relates to support to developing countries on the field in order for them to be able to overcome the present difficulties will not be reduced, on the contrary, will be increased,” he pointed out.

Mandeep S. Tiwana, Secretary General CIVICUS, a global civil society alliance, told IPS funding modalities for the UN need to be made simpler and also brought into the 21st century.

The present process, he pointed out, is too complicated and not easy to comprehend. Formulations for assessed and voluntary contributions are confusing and bureaucratic with some countries paying too much and others too little.

A simpler and fairer way would be assessed contributions be based on small percentage of a country’s Gross National Income. This would also allow formulations to be transparent and understandable by people around the world for whom the UN is exists,” declared Tiwana.

https://www.un.org/en/ga/contributions/honourroll.shtml

The five biggest funders of the UN, based on mandatory assessed contributions for the regular and peacekeeping budgets, are the United States, China, Japan, Germany, and the United Kingdom. These countries are responsible for a majority of the UN’s funding and are among the largest economies in the world.

United States: Pays the largest share, at around 22% for the regular budget and over 26% for peacekeeping.
China: The second-largest contributor, responsible for about 20% of the regular budget and nearly 19% of peacekeeping contributions.
Japan: Contributes approximately 7% to the regular budget and over 8% to peacekeeping.
Germany: Pays about 6% of the regular budget and 6% of the peacekeeping budget.
United Kingdom: Accounts for roughly 5% of both the regular and peacekeeping budgets.

Referring to the latest financial contribution, UN Deputy Spokesperson Farhan Haq told reporters October 30, “We thank our friends in Beijing for their full payment to the Regular Budget. China’s payment brings the number of fully paid-up Member States to 142,” (out of 193)

Asked how that money would help UN navigate through these difficult times, Haq said: “To be honest, any payments are helpful, but this is a very large payment– of more than $685 million– so it’s well appreciated.”

“And certainly, we thank the government in Beijing. But of course, we also stress that all governments need to pay their dues in full. You’ve seen the sort of financial pressures we’ve been under, and we do need full payments from all Member States,” he declared.

Kul Gautam, a former UN assistant secretary-general (ASG) and deputy director of UNICEF, pointed out that in 1985, Swedish Prime Minister Olof Palme proposed a simple remedy: no single country should pay—or be allowed to pay—more than 10% of the UN’s budget.

That, he said, would reduce dependence on any one donor while requiring modest increases from others. Ironically, Washington opposed it, fearing it might lose influence.

Asked for a clarification, he told IPS “it is my understanding that the assessed contributions to the UN regular budget are negotiated and approved by the UN General Assembly based on the recommendations of the GA’s Committee on Contributions, which determines a scale of assessments every three years based on a country’s “capacity to pay.”

The Committee on Contributions recommends assessment levels based on gross national income and other economic data, with a minimum assessment of 0.001% and a maximum assessment of 22%.

The scale of assessment of the UN regular budget does not need the approval of the Security Council, nor is it subject to veto by the P-5.

In the case of the UN’s peacekeeping budget, he said, the scale of assessment is based on a modification of the UN regular budget scale, with the P-5 countries assessed at a higher level than for the regular budget due to their role in authorizing and renewing peacekeeping missions.

Historically, the Security Council has authorized the UN General Assembly to create a separate assessed account for each peacekeeping operation. Thus, the Security Council definitely has a say in determining the peacekeeping budget.

http://www.ipsnews.net/2019/10/wanted-bold-leadership-antonio-guterres-sustainable-funding-united-nations/

In his interview with Breitbart News US Ambassador Mike Waltz also said: “And I would say to those who say, why don’t we just shut this thing down and walk away?”

“Well, I think we need it to be reformed in line with its potential that President Trump sees. And I think my answer would be: we need one place in the world where everybody can talk”.
President Trump is a president of peace, he said. He wants to keep us out of war. He wants to put diplomacy first. He wants to create deals.

“Well, there’s one place in the world, and that’s right here at the UN that the Chinese, the Russians, the Europeans, developing countries all over the world can come and do their best to hash things out,” declared.

In an October 17 statement, Guterres said: “My proposed programme budget for 2026 of 3.715 billion US dollars is slightly below the 2025 approved budget – excluding post re-costing and major construction projects in Nairobi and under the Strategic Heritage Plan.

This figure includes funding for 37 Special Political Missions – reflecting a net decrease due to the liquidation of the United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq and the planned drawdown of the United Nations Transitional Assistance Mission in Somalia.

The proposed budget provides for 14,275 posts – and reflects our commitment to advance the three pillars of our work – peace and security, development, and human rights – in a balanced manner.

“We propose to continue supporting the Resident Coordinator System with a 53 million US dollars commitment authority for 2026 – identical to 2025.”

The 50 million US dollars grant for the Peacebuilding Fund is also maintained, he said..

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

The first USSR nuclear test "Joe 1" at Semipalatinsk, Kazakhstan, 29 August 1949. Credit: CTBTO

By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Oct 31 2025 (IPS)

The lingering after-effects of nuclear tests by the world’s nuclear powers have left a devastating impact on hundreds and thousands of victims world-wide.

The history of nuclear testing, according to the United Nations, began 16 July 1945 at a desert test site in Alamogordo, New Mexico when the United States exploded its first atomic bomb.

In the five decades, between 1945 and the opening for signature of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) in 1996, over 2,000 nuclear tests were carried out all over the world.

• The United States conducted 1,032 tests between 1945 and 1992.
• The Soviet Union carried out 715 tests between 1949 and 1990.
• The United Kingdom carried out 45 tests between 1952 and 1991.
• France carried out 210 tests between 1960 and 1996.
• China carried out 45 tests between 1964 and 1996.
• India carried out 1 test in 1974.

Since the CTBT was opened for signature in September 1996, 10 nuclear tests have been conducted:

• India conducted two tests in 1998.
• Pakistan conducted two tests in 1998.
• The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea conducted nuclear tests in 2006, 2009, 2013, 2016, and 2017.

On October 30, President Donald Ttrump, just ahead of his meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping, announced on social media, that the US will resume testing nuclear weapons for the first time in over 30 years.

But this time on an “equal basis” with Russia and China.

The main former US nuclear test sites were the Nevada Test Site (now the Nevada National Security Site) and the Pacific Proving Grounds in the Marshall Islands and near Kiritimati (Christmas) Island. Other tests also occurred in various locations across the United States, including New Mexico, Colorado, Alaska, and Mississippi.

The Nevada test site, located in Nye County, Nevada, was the most active, with over 1,000 tests conducted between 1951 and 1992.

Speaking at a meeting, September 26, on The International Day for the Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons,” UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres warned “nuclear testing threats are returning, while nuclear saber rattling is louder than in past decades.”

Meanwhile, a New York Times story October 29, headlined “China is Racing to Lead World in Nuclear Power,” harks back to the 45 nuclear tests by China between 1964 and 1996.

According to one report, nuclear test survivors in China, particularly ethnic Uyghurs in Xinjiang, face a situation where their health issues from radiation exposure are largely unrecognized, and their voices are systematically silenced by the government.

“The Chinese state has actively suppressed information about the devastating consequences of its nuclear testing program on the local population”.

According to an AI generated overview, China’s tests included both atmospheric and underground tests, which included 22 atmospheric detonations, which exposed the local population to significant radioactive fallout.

The Chinese government claimed the test site was a “barren and isolated” area with no permanent residents. In reality, Uyghur herders and farmers had lived there for centuries.

Independent research and anecdotal evidence paint a grim picture of the human and environmental costs.

Medical experts have documented a disproportionate increase in cancers, birth defects, leukemia, and degenerative disorders in Xinjiang compared to the rest of China.

Alice Slater, who serves on the boards of World BEYOND War and the Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space, and is a UN NGO Representative for the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, told IPS regardless of China ‘s unfair treatment of downwinders at Lop Nor, is it any more egregious than the treatment of the downwinders in Nevada, Kazakhstan, and the Marshall Islands, who suffered the effects of US, Russian and French tests?

What can we LEARN from China during these terrible times if imminent nuclear annihilation?

They just reissued their joint appeal with Russia to negotiate treaties to ban weapons in space and war in space and pledged never to be the first to use or place weapons in space. Unlike the US and Russia which keep their nuclear bombs on missiles poised and ready to fire, China separates their warheads from their missiles, she said.

The Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons DID enter into force when 50 countries ratified it, she pointed out. Although many more than 50 have now signed and ratified it, NONE of the nuclear weapons states or any of the US allies harboring under the US nuclear “umbrella” have signed., said Slater.

Tariq Rauf, Former Head of Verification and Security Policy, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), told IPS: Is the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty a Flawed Treaty?

The objective of a comprehensive ban on nuclear testing originally had been truly comprehensive: non-proliferation and disarmament, but the CTBT lacks substantive link to nuclear disarmament, he pointed out.

“Throughout the treaty negotiations, the purpose of a ban on all forms of testing became progressively de-linked from the ultimate objective of the total elimination of nuclear weapons.

In the final text, non-nuclear-weapon States were barely able to establish a relationship between the exhortations for disarmament in the preamble and the operative text.

The CTBT even permits non-explosive forms of testing, which, with advances in technology, may today be used to refine nuclear weapons and to design new ones. Nuclear test sites remain active in China, Russia, US (DPRK, India, Pakistan ??). France is the only NWS to have decommissioned its test site.

China, Egypt, Iran, Russia and the US need to ratify, but there is no pressure exerted on these NPT States in NPT meetings. And the same goes for non-signatories, DPRK, India, Israel and Pakistan, he said.

“It seems that the CTBT will never enter into force, but hopefully the moratoria on nuclear testing would continue?”

Kazakhstan and the Marshall Islands are leading efforts to set up an international trust fund for victims of nuclear testing, under the aegis of Article 6 of the TNPW. The CTBT lacks any provision on assistance to victims of testing, Rauf said.

According to the United Nations, The Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty bans nuclear testing everywhere on the planet — surface, atmosphere, underwater and underground.

The Treaty takes on significance as it also aims to obstruct the development of nuclear weapons: both the initial development of nuclear weapons as well as their substantial improvement (e.g. the advent of thermonuclear weapons) necessitate real nuclear testing.

The CTBT makes it almost impossible for countries that do not yet have nuclear weapons to develop them. And it makes it almost impossible for countries that have nuclear weapons to develop new or more advanced weapons. It also helps prevent the damage caused by nuclear testing to humans and the environment.

Reacting to Trump’s announcement, U.S. Senator Jack Reed (Democrat -Rhode Island), the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, said: “Once again, President Trump has it wrong when it comes to nuclear weapons policy.”

This time, he seems to have ordered the Pentagon to resume nuclear explosive weapons testing. This confusing directive reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of our nuclear enterprise—it is the Department of Energy, not the Department of Defense, that manages our nuclear weapons complex and any testing activities.

“Breaking the explosive testing moratorium that the United States, Russia, and China have maintained since the 1990s would be strategically reckless, inevitably prompting Moscow and Beijing to resume their own testing programs”.

Further, he said, American explosive testing would provide justification for Pakistan, India, and North Korea to expand their own testing regimes, destabilizing an already fragile global nonproliferation architecture at precisely the moment we can least afford it.

“The United States would gain very little from such testing, and we would sacrifice decades of hard-won progress in preventing nuclear proliferation.”

This article is brought to you by INPS Japan in collaboration with Soka Gakkai International, in consultative status with the UN’s Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC).

INPS Japan

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Credit: UN Photo/Martine Perret

By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Oct 27 2025 (IPS)

The African continent has long been monopolized by European colonial rulers, with France having the largest number of colonies, ruling over 35 territories, followed by Britain with 32. A bygone era of colonial rule on the continent, “once carved up and ruled by European powers hungry for imperial glory,” has virtually ended—almost.

Currently, they are all members of the 55-nation African Union (AU).

Described as a non-self-governing territory in northwestern Africa fighting for decolonization, Western Sahara is the last African colonial state yet to achieve independence and dubbed “Africa’s last colony.”

With an estimated population of around 600,000 inhabitants, it is the most sparsely populated territory in Africa and the second most sparsely populated territory in the world, consisting mainly of desert flatlands.

A former Spanish colony, it was annexed by Morocco in 1975. Since then, it has been the subject of a long-running territorial dispute between Morocco and its indigenous Sahrawi people, led by the POLISARIO Front.

On October 30, the UN Security Council is scheduled to vote on a draft resolution on the future of the UN Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara (MINURSO).

According to a published report, the United States has circulated a draft resolution supporting Morocco’s 2007 autonomy plan for Western Sahara as the basis for a mutually acceptable solution.

The draft, which supports extending the UN mission’s mandate, calls for negotiations to begin without preconditions based on Morocco’s proposal, framing it as the “most feasible solution” for a “genuine autonomy within the Moroccan state” and a lasting resolution.

Dr. Stephen Zunes, a Professor of Politics and International Studies at the University of San Francisco, and co-author of Western Sahara: War, Nationalism, and Conflict Irresolution, told IPS the autonomy proposal is based on the assumption that Western Sahara is part of Morocco, a contention that has long been rejected by the United Nations, the World Court, the African Union and a broad consensus of international legal opinion.

Western Sahara, he pointed out, is a full member state of the African Union, and the United Nations recognizes it as a non-self-governing territory.

“To accept Morocco’s autonomy plan would mean that, for the first time since the founding of the United Nations and the ratification of the UN Charter eighty years ago, the international community would be endorsing the expansion of a country’s territory by military force, thereby establishing a very dangerous and destabilizing precedent, with serious implications for Russian-occupied parts of Ukraine as well as Israeli-occupied territories.”

If the people of Western Sahara accepted an autonomy agreement over independence, as a result of a free and fair referendum, he argued, it would constitute a legitimate act of self-determination.

However, Morocco has explicitly stated that its autonomy proposal “rules out, by definition, the possibility for the independence option to be submitted” to the people of Western Sahara, the vast majority of whom – according to knowledgeable international observers—favor outright independence.

On October 24, the Representative of the Frente POLISARIO at the United Nations and Coordinator with MINURSO, Dr Sidi Mohamed Omar, sent a letter to Ambassador Vassily Nebenzia of Russia, current President of the UN Security Council, in which he stressed the position of the Frente POLISARIO on the US draft resolution.

“The Frente POLISARIO underscores that the draft resolution, which reflects the national position of the penholder, is a very dangerous, unprecedented departure not only from the principles of international law underpinning Western Sahara as a question of decolonization but also from the basis upon which the Security Council has addressed Western Sahara.”

“It also contains elements that strike at the heart of the foundations of the UN peace process in Western Sahara and constitute a grave violation of the international status of the Territory.”

Acting under the relevant Chapters of the UN Charter, the Security Council has firmly and consensually established the basis of the solution and the process leading to it, namely negotiations under the auspices of the Secretary-General without preconditions and in good faith with a view to achieving a just, lasting, and mutually acceptable political solution, which will provide for the self-determination of the people of Western Sahara in the context of arrangements consistent with the principles and purposes of the UN Charter, the letter said.

As confirmed by the International Court of Justice, sovereignty over Western Sahara belongs exclusively to the Sahrawi people who have an inalienable, non-negotiable, and imprescriptible right to self-determination to be exercised freely and democratically under the UN auspices.

Therefore, any approach that sets a prefixed framework for the negotiations or predetermines their outcome, circumscribes the free exercise by the Sahrawi people of their right to self-determination, or imposes a solution against their will is utterly unacceptable to the Frente POLISARIO, the letter said.

According to a Security Council report, October 2025, an immediate issue for the Council is to renew the mandate of MINURSO and consider what changes to the mission’s mandate, if any, are necessary.

The underlying issue remains how to facilitate a viable and lasting resolution to the long-standing deadlock over the status of Western Sahara.

Two fundamentally diverging positions have made a resolution to the conflict difficult.

On the one hand, the Polisario Front’s demand for the Sahrawi people’s right to self-determination, which has been recognized by the International Court of Justice in its 16 October 1975 advisory opinion and supported by several member states.

And numerous UN General Assembly resolutions, such as resolution A/RES/34/37, have affirmed the “inalienable right of the people of Western Sahara” to self-determination and independence. The Council has also called for a “just, lasting, and mutually acceptable political solution that will provide for the self-determination of the people of Western Sahara.”

On the other hand, Morocco claims sovereignty over the territory, and its Autonomy Plan has received support from an increasing number of member states in recent years. In 2007, the Council adopted resolution 1754, which, in its preambular paragraphs, took note of Morocco’s proposal and welcomed Morocco’s efforts as serious and credible to move the process forward towards resolution.

Significant obstacles remain in the peace process. Hostilities have persisted at a low to medium intensity, falling short of large-scale confrontation. Moreover, Morocco controls over three-quarters of the Western Sahara territory and has made substantial investments in the region, including a $1.2 billion port project in Dakhla.

In addition, settlers of Moroccan origin account for nearly two-thirds of the approximately half-million residents of Western Sahara

Elaborating further, Dr Zunes said: “even if one takes a dismissive attitude toward international law, there are a number of practical concerns regarding the Moroccan proposal as well: One is that the history of respect for regional autonomy on the part of centralized authoritarian states is quite poor, as with Eritrea and Kosovo, which only gained independence after a long a bloody struggle, and more recently with Hong Kong.”

Based upon Morocco’s habit of breaking its promises to the international community regarding the UN-mandated referendum for Western Sahara and related obligations based on the ceasefire agreement in 1991, he said, there is little to inspire confidence that Morocco would live up to its promises to provide genuine autonomy for Western Sahara.

“A close reading of the proposal raises questions as to how much autonomy is even being offered. Important matters such as control of Western Sahara’s natural resources and law enforcement (beyond local jurisdictions) remain ambiguous.”

In addition, he pointed out, the proposal appears to indicate that all powers not specifically vested in the autonomous region would remain with the Kingdom.

Indeed, since the king of Morocco is ultimately invested with absolute authority under Article 19 of the Moroccan Constitution, the autonomy proposal’s insistence that the Moroccan state “will keep its powers in the royal domains, especially with respect to defense, external relations and the constitutional and religious prerogatives of His Majesty the King” appears to afford the autocratic monarch considerable latitude of interpretation.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Oct 17 2025 (IPS)

The US hostility towards the UN is threatening to escalate, as a cash-starved world body is struggling for economic survival.

Addressing the UN’s Administrative and Budgetary Committee last week. Ambassador Jeff Bartos, U.S. Representative for U.N. Management and Reform said: “President Trump is absolutely right – the United Nations can be an important institution for solving international challenges, but it has strayed far from its original purpose”.

“Over 80 years, the UN has grown bloated, unfocused, too often ineffective, and sometimes even part of the problem. The UN’s failure to deliver on its core mandates is alarming and undeniable. “

The United States has been, by far, the largest funder of the UN since its founding. Based on the most recent scales of assessment, the United States provides more funding to the UN than 180 other nations combined, he pointed out.

“For the United States, the era of business as usual is over. During the Main Session, we will work with this Committee to achieve deeper cuts to wasteful spending and stronger accountability, with a relentless focus on results”.

The reductions already proposed in special political missions, the closure of unnecessary field offices, and the consolidation of executive offices, are the kind of decisions that must become the rule, not the exception.

Addressing the General Assembly last month, President Trump remarked: “What is the purpose of the United Nations? It’s not even coming close to living up to [its] potential.”

Dismissing the U.N. as an outdated, ineffective organization, he boasted: “I ended seven wars, dealt with the leaders of each and every one of these countries, and never a phone call from the United Nations offering to help in finalizing the deal.”

But UN’s political ineffectiveness is due primarily to the role played by the five veto-wielding permanent members of the Security Council—the US, UK, France, China and Russia–who are quick to protect their allies accused of human rights violations, war crimes or genocide.

Meanwhile, the U.S. has officially withdrawn or is in the process of withdrawing from the World Health Organization (WHO) and the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC), and has ceased funding for the UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) and from the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).

Which triggers the question: what’s the fate and economic survival of the UN against an aggressive Trump administration?

Dr Alon Ben-Meir, a retired professor of international relations, most recently at the Center for Global Affairs at New York University (NYU), told IPS there is no other way to describe how the Trump administration is treating the UN other than self-defeating and detrimental to the US’s national interests, while substantially eroding America’s influence worldwide.

“It is hard to fathom how on earth Trump, who wants to ‘Make America Great Again,’ demonstrates such blatant hostility towards the only global organization in which the United States has, over the years, played such a pivotal and leading role that surpassed any other country since the UN’s creation in 1945.”

The statement by US Ambassador Bartos, he argued, is at best inaccurate and at worst totally wrong. It has never been a secret that the UN is overdue for significant reforms, beginning with the United Nations Security Council and many other UN agencies.

Dismissing the UN’s vital work on many fronts in one brush, however, and cutting humanitarian assistance on which millions in poor countries depend, or withdrawing from vital UN agencies, is unconscionable and highly damaging to the US’ leadership and national interests, he said.

“By what logic does the Trump administration justify its withdrawal from the World Health Organization (WHO), whose primary function is coordinating global health responses to crises such as pandemics, and setting international health standards?”

“One would think that the Trump administration would strongly support such an organization that serves US interests from a global health perspective and would only bolster the US influence by playing a significant role in improving its functions”.

How can the Trump administration explain its withdrawal from the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC), which promotes and protects human rights worldwide through international cooperation?

By withdrawing from this organization, Trump forsakes any role that the US could play in preventing human rights abuses, which leads to fewer global checks on human rights abuses and weaker international standards.

Trump may care less about human rights violations, but how does withdrawing from such an organization serve the US’ overall national and global interests? he asked.

James E. Jennings, PhD, President, Conscience International, told IPS support for the United Nations organization is vital to global health and stability.,

“Those who have worked on the front lines of UN agencies’ responses to wars, natural disasters, and famines throughout the world cannot imagine the degree of inhumanity involved in taking food out of the mouths of babies, refusing to educate children, and letting disease and epidemics rage. This is not politics, it is bullying, and the world should see it for what it is”.

He said there is a pattern in Mr. Trump’s behavior that is easily exposed, Every one of his perceived enemies, as for example in the majority Democratic states of California and Illinois, he describes in the most terrible terms as crime-ridden and out of control.

“Within three days after he sends in ICE storm troopers to places like Washington DC who do nothing except display their muscle, suddenly that city or state is peaceable and under control.“

Trump brags that things are fine now in Portland, Chicago, and other such places, when no real change can be detected except that some normal citizens have been roughed up. Theatrics may win voters but does not in any way solve problems, said Dr Jennings.

The same technique can be observed on the international scene. After deprecating and sidelining UN peacemaking efforts, which go deeply into the issues, he makes phone calls to leaders of countries on the verge of hostilities and claims that he has ended seven wars, which is nonsense.

“By sidelining the UN, he simply wants to dominate it. With the US the biggest donor supporting the organization, there is a fair chance that he can succeed in bending it to his will unless national leaders, US citizens, and people everywhere are resolute in opposing his plans”, declared Dr Jennings.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau