In an era defined by the gig economy and pervasive job insecurity, advocating for permanent contracts within the United Nations might seem anachronistic, even counterintuitive.
I’ve spent much of my life in the machinery of international development, navigating acronyms, crises, and committee rooms with stale coffee. Through it all—amid war zones, climate summits, and remote island consultations—one institution has remained constant: the United Nations.
In the US, the success of a business enterprise or the value of real estate is reflected in a repetitive and alliterative phrase: “LOCATION, LOCATION, LOCATION”.
As the UN continues its plans for system-wide restructuring-- amidst a growing liquidity crisis-- one of the key issues on the negotiating table is the re-location of UN agencies: a choice between high-cost and low-cost duty stations.
United Nations member states this week reiterated their commitment to the prevention of genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity—at a time when world powers are failing to meet these obligations.
Chest thumping “Mission Accomplished” claims by President Trump that he ordered the world’s biggest conventional bombs to be dropped on a sleeping nation of 90 million people, were premature. To top it off he bragged that Iran’s nuclear capacity was devastated and that the whole nation fired “not a single shot” back.
“We are writing to you regarding the cuts being undertaken under the UN80 Initiative and, more broadly, across the UN system. While we are mindful of the current funding challenges, we believe that the rushed and chaotic manner in which these changes are being implemented is causing deeper harm to both the effectiveness and reputation of the United Nations.
Twenty years ago, one day in June 2005, I talked with an Iranian man who was selling underwear at the Tehran Grand Bazaar. People all over the world want peace, he said, but governments won’t let them have it.
A deal between the US and Iran is possible if Iran’s bottom line -- its right to nuclear enrichment -- and Israel’s bottom line, guarantees that Iran will never have a nuclear bomb are met. This “win-win” outcome would require Donald Trump’s personal engagement. With weapons turned to plowshares, Trump would be considered for the Nobel Peace Prize.
When billionaire Elon Musk, a former short-lived advisor to President Donald Trump, was mandated with the task of decimating the federal bureaucracy and laying off thousands of staffers, he was famously pictured carrying a hacksaw to symbolize his cost-cutting agenda.
As G7 leaders of the world’s wealthiest nations wrapped up their summit in Kananaskis June 16, a critical issue was absent from the agenda: the future of global health financing.
Ten years ago, I lost more than a job.
When my post was abolished, there was no warning, no closure, no golden parachute—just a quiet erasure. Overnight, I went from a UN professional with decades of service to an invisible statistic in a system that eats its own.
Israel’s attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities may be justified if one takes Netanyahu’s explanation at face value. I doubt, however, if he and Trump have fully considered the ominous regional ramifications of the attack and whether negotiations to limit Iran’s nuclear program would have led to much more positive results.
The United States, a longstanding and unyielding Israeli ally, is threatening UN member states urging them to keep off an upcoming high-level meeting aimed at recognizing a two-state solution for the Israeli-Palestine conflict.
The meeting, to be co-chaired by France, a permanent member of the UN Security Council, and Saudi Arabia, a strong political ally of the US, is scheduled to take place June 17-20.
The world is experiencing a surge in violence not seen since the post-World War II era. 2024 marked a grim new record: the highest number of state-based armed conflicts in over seven decades.
To the outside world, a sea level rise of 34 cm (or slightly longer than a child’s ruler) may not seem dramatic, but it’s an existential threat to the Pacific island state of Vanuatu.
During President Trump’s tour of Gulf monarchies last month, he mentioned Gaza only two times. The first time was in Doha, when he expressed his desire to make Gaza a “freedom zone.” Gaza’s 2.1 million residents, nearly half of whom are children, would like that, too.
For over a year, I refused to ascribe Israel's war against Hamas and the reign of horror it is inflicting on the Palestinians in Gaza as genocide, but now I feel shaken to the core by what I am witnessing. If what I see is not genocide, then I do not know what is.
Israel’s ongoing war of annihilation in Gaza has wiped out hospitals, schools, homes, water, and food, reducing the Palestinian territory to a wasteland and leaving a death toll of more than 53,000 people. But an equally lethal campaign has been unleashed against the foundations of Palestinian society and identity.
When US President Donald Trump offered to declare neighboring Canada as America’s 51st state, the Canadians vehemently rejected the proposal.
“We don’t want to be part of America,” was the rallying cry. And the short-lived offer was shot down in flames.
In January 2025, President Trump signed an
executive order that upended humanitarian efforts globally, leaving millions of vulnerable people without lifesaving services. The administration's decision to slash American international aid by 83% is creating daily tragedies in the world's most fragile regions.
The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons must not be allowed to collapse under the weight of geopolitical cynicism, the preparatory committee at the UN heard.