An artist in Colombia draws an image of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Credit: UN Colombia/Jose Rios Source: UN News
GENEVA, Feb 6 2026 (IPS) – The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk has launched a USD 400 million funding appeal for 2026 to address global human rights needs, warning that with mounting crises, the world cannot afford a human rights system in crisis.
“The cost of our work is low; the human cost of underinvestment is immeasurable,” Türk told States at the launch. “In times of conflict and in times of peace, we are a lifeline for the abused, a megaphone for the silenced, a steadfast ally to those who risk everything to defend the rights of others.”
In 2025, staff working for the UN Human Rights Office in 87 countries observed more than 1,300 trials, supported 67,000 survivors of torture, documented tens of thousands of human rights violations, and contributed to the release of more than 4,000 people from arbitrary detention.
Türk also stressed that addressing inequalities and respecting economic and social rights are vital to peace and stability. “Human rights make economies work for everyone, rather than deepening exclusion and breeding instability,” he said.
The Office in 2025 worked with more than 35 governments on the human rights economy, which aims to align all economic policies with human rights. For example, in Djibouti, it helped conduct a human rights analysis of the health budget, with a focus on people with disabilities. It provided critical human rights analysis to numerous UN Country Teams working on sustainable development.
Türk outlined several consequences of reduced funding in 2025. For instance, the Office conducted only 5,000 human rights monitoring missions, a decrease from 11,000 in 2024. The Office’s programme in Myanmar suffered cuts of more than 60 percent. In Honduras, support for demilitarisation of the prison system and for justice and security sector reforms was reduced. In Chad, advocacy and support for nearly 600 detainees held without legal basis had to be discontinued.
“Our reporting provides credible information on atrocities and human rights trends at a time when truth is being eroded by disinformation and censorship. It informs deliberations both in the UN Security Council and the Human Rights Council, and is widely cited by international courts, providing critical evidence for accountability,” he said.
The liquidity crisis of the regular budget also significantly affected the work of the broader human rights ecosystem. For instance, 35 scheduled State party dialogues by UN Human Rights Treaty Bodies could not take place.
Four out of eight planned country visits by the Sub-Committee on Prevention of Torture had to be cancelled. UN Special Rapporteurs’ ability to carry out country visits was curtailed, and the Human Rights Council’s investigative bodies were unable to fulfil their mandates fully.
The UN Human Rights Chief also regretted that the Office lost approximately 300 staff out of a total of 2,000 and was forced to close or radically reduce its presence in 17 countries, erasing entire programmes critical for endangered, threatened, or marginalised communities, from Colombia and Guinea-Bissau to Tajikistan.
“All this is weakening our ‘Protection by Presence’ – a simple idea with powerful impact: that the physical presence of trained human rights officers on the ground deters violations and reduces harm,” Türk said.
In 2025, the Office’s approved regular budget was USD 246 million, but it received only USD 191.5 million, resulting in a USD 54.5 million shortfall. It had also requested USD 500 million in voluntary contributions and received only USD 257.8 million.
The UN Human Rights Chief thanked the 113 funding partners – Governments, multilateral donors, private entities, among others – who contributed to the 2025 budget and helped save and improve lives.
For 2026, the UN General Assembly has approved a regular budget of USD 224.3 million, which is based on assessed contributions from Member States. This amount is 10 per cent lower than in 2025, and further uncertainty remains about the actual amount the Office will receive due to the liquidity crisis the UN is facing.
Through its 2026 Appeal, the Office is requesting an additional USD 400 million in voluntary contributions.
“Historically, human rights account for an extremely small portion of all UN spending. We need to step up support for this low-cost, high-impact work that helps stabilise communities, builds trust in institutions, and supports lasting peace,” the High Commissioner said.
“And we need more unearmarked and timely contributions so we can respond quickly, as human rights cannot wait.”
David Oburo, IPBES Chair. Credit: Busani Bafana/IPS
BULAWAYO, Feb 3 2026 (IPS) – British Monarch King Charles says science is the solution to protecting nature and halting global biodiversity loss, which is threatening humanity’s survival.
“We are witnessing an unprecedented, triple crisis of biodiversity loss, climate change, and pollution at a pace that far outstrips the planet’s ability to cope,” said King Charles in a message delivered by Emma Reynolds, United Kingdom Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
Science is the Solution
“The best available science can help inform decisions and actions to steward nature and, most importantly, to restore it for future generations, “ King Charles noted, pointing out that humanity has the knowledge to reverse the existential crisis and transition towards an economy that prospers in harmony with nature.
Delegates representing the more than 150 IPBES member governments, observers, Indigenous Peoples, local communities and scientists are meeting for the IPBES’ 12th Session, expected to approve a landmark new IPBES Business & Biodiversity Assessment. The report, a 3-year scientific assessment involving 80 expert authors from every region of the world, will become the accepted state of science on the impacts and dependencies of business on biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people. It will provide decision-makers with evidence and options for action to measure and better manage business relationships with nature.
The King lauded IPBES for bringing together the world’s leading scientists, indigenous and local knowledge, citizen science and government to share valuable knowledge through the Business and Biodiversity Report—the first of its kind.
“I pray with all my heart that it will help shape concrete action for years to come, including leveraging public and private finance to close by 2030 the annual global biodiversity gap of approximately USD 700 billion,” said King Charles.
IPBES Chair, Dr. David Obura, highlighted that the approval of the IPBES Business and Biodiversity Assessment is important just days after the World Economic Forum’s 2026 Global Risks Report again spotlighted biodiversity loss as the second most urgent long-term risk to business around the world.
“In transitioning and transforming, businesses should all experience the rewards of being sustainable and vibrant, benefiting small and large,” Obura emphasized. “The Business Biodiversity assessment synthesizes the many tools and pathways available to do this and provides critical support for businesses across all countries to work with nature and people and not to work against either or both.”
Addressing the same delegates, Emma Reynolds, UK Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, highlighted the urgency of collective action, the critical role of science, and the opportunities for business in nature.
Reynolds noted there was momentum around the world as countries were restoring wetlands and forests, communities were reviving degraded landscapes and businesses were increasingly investing in nature after realizing that nature delivers real returns.
“The tide for nature is beginning to turn, but we cannot afford to slow down,” said Reynolds. “The window to halt diversity loss by 2030 is narrowing. We need to build on that momentum, and we need to do it now.”
Multilateralism, a must for protecting nature
Paying tribute to IPBES for supporting scientific research, Reynolds emphasized that the rest of the world must step forward when others are stepping back from international cooperation. This is to demonstrate that protecting and restoring nature was not just an environmental necessity but essential for global security and the economy.
“The UK’s commitment to multilateralism remains steadfast,” she said. “We believe that by working together, sharing knowledge, aligning policies, and holding one another accountable, we can halt and reverse the diversity loss by 2030,.“
In January 2026, the United States withdrew its participation in IPBES, alongside 65 international organizations and bodies, including the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Paris Agreement.
The United States was a founding member of IPBES, and since its establishment in 2012, scientists, policymakers, and stakeholders—including Indigenous Peoples and local communities—from the United States have been among the most engaged contributors to its work.
The approval of the Business and Biodiversity Assessment by IPBES government members this week will be multilateralism in action, she said, noting that the assessment would not be possible without the critical role of science.
Reynolds underscored the need to base sound policy on solid scientific evidence. Decisions made in negotiating rooms and capitals around the world must be guided by the best and most up-to-date science available. IPBES exists to provide exactly that.
Noting that the business depends on nature for raw materials, clean water, a stable climate, and food, Reynolds said companies that recognize their dependency on nature are proving that nature-positive investment works.
“Business as well as the government must act now to protect and restore nature… we have the science. We have the frameworks… What we need now is action.”
“Nature loss is now a systemic economic risk. That’s precisely why the assessment on business impact and dependencies is both urgent and necessary,” said Inger Andersen, executive director of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).
“The first-ever business and diversity assessment will deliver authoritative evidence on how businesses depend on nature, how they impact it, and what that means for risk, for resilience, and for long-term value creation.”
Business and Biodiversity are linked
Underscoring that biodiversity loss is linked to the wider planetary crisis, Astrid Schomaker, executive secretary of the Convention on Biological Diversity, paid tribute to IPBES as a provider of science as a public good.
“IPBES has remained a ‘beacon of knowledge at a time when science and knowledge itself is under strain and when the voices of disinformation are sometimes louder than the facts,” said Schomaker, noting that ahead of the first global stocktake of progress in the implementation of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF), the science provided by IPBES would be invaluable.
“The Business and Biodiversity assessment constitutes a win for everyone. Clarifying that biodiversity loss isn’t just an environmental issue; it’s a serious threat to economic systems, livelihoods, business profitability, and societal resilience. Biodiversity simply underpins and provides the stability we all need.”
Target 15 of the KMGBF, focuses on business reducing negative impacts on biodiversity and global businesses need to assess and disclose biodiversity-related impacts.
IPBES executive secretary, Dr. Luthando Dziba, said IPBES was on track to deliver, in the coming years, crucial knowledge and inspiration to support the implementation of current goals and targets of the KMGBF, and to provide the scientific foundation needed by the many processes now shaping the global agenda beyond 2030.
NEW YORK, Feb 3 2026 (IPS) – In the month of February 2025, one year ago, United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres commenced his briefing of the media by announcing that “I want to start by expressing my deep concern about information received in the last 48 hours by UN agencies — as well as many humanitarian and development NGOs — regarding severe cuts in funding by the United States.” He went on to warn that ““The consequences will be especially devastating for vulnerable people around the world.”
Anwarul K. Chowdhury
UN80 Initiative – Reform or Pressure?
That budgetary crisis was attempted to be put off by launching the anniversary-rationaled and liquidity-crunch-panic-driven, window-dressing reform agenda – the so-called UN80 Initiative. These long overdue structural and programmatic reforms of the UN system have been on the agenda of at least for the last four Secretaries-General but without having much significant impact, except acronym-changing, mandate-creeping and structure-tweaking, and now these days, staff-relocating.
An Alarm Bell for Financial Collapse
End of this January again the Secretary-General said in a letter to all UN Member States that cash for its regular operating budget could run out by July, which could dramatically affect its operations. He also called on the to fundamentally overhaul the UN’s financial rules to prevent an “imminent financial collapse”.
Why now ask the member states to do something concrete? Why not in February 2025 when he sounded the alarm himself?
It reminds me of the somewhat similar Aesop’s fable about boy who cried wolf.
Lamenting Limited Power – No Power, No Money
In the past, Secretary-General Guterres lamented to the media asserting that “… it is absolutely true that the Secretary-General of the United Nations has very limited power, and it’s also absolutely true that he has very little capacity to mobilize financial resources. So, no power and no money.”
That is the reality which every Secretary-General faces and has been aware of. That is also known generally to the people who follow the United Nations regularly and thoroughly understand the functional complexity of the world’s largest multilateral apparatus.
Why then does this reality surfaces and brought to public attention only when the UN leadership fails to carry out the mandated responsibilities?
I believe strongly that this “very limited power”, as worded by SG Guterres, should be highlighted as often as possible to avoid unnecessary and undue expectations of the global community about the UN and its top leadership. No Secretary-General has pointed out these limitations as he campaigned for the post and on assuming the office, as far as I know.
Current SG Guterres is no exception. He would have been realistic and factual if he had pointed out the limitations – better termed as obstacles – to his leadership as he took office in 2017, and not in 2026 after being in office for nearly nine years. This built-in operational weakness and inability of the world’s most important diplomat have always been there.
Controlling Or Quitting?
Some people speculate that the US is using its financial clout and pressure to threaten the collapse of the UN.
The US has always been using its huge power of veto and almost one-fourth of the budgetary contributions to the operations of the UN system. That is a reality which should be kept in mind by the leadership of the UN and its Member States, unless the Charter of the UN is changed to create a more democratic organization in the true sense.
For a long time, the US has used the part payment arrangements for its legally due contributions, with full understanding and acceptance of the Secretary-General, so that it can avoid losing its voting power and get its own pound of flesh each time such instalment payments are made.
I believe the US wants to use the world body in its own way by controlling, not quitting.
A Woman at the Helm for The UN
In this context, let me reiterate that after eight decades of its existence and choosing nine men successively to be the world’s topmost diplomat, it is incumbent on the United Nations to have the sanity and sagacity of electing a woman as the next Secretary-General in 2026 when the incumbent’s successor would be chosen.
There is a need for creative, non-bureaucratic and pro-active leadership initiative for a real change to ensure avoidance of “crying wolf” syndrome disrupting the work and activities of the most universal multilateral body with the mandate for working in the best interest of humanity.
Ambassador Anwarul K. Chowdhury is a former UN Under-Secretary-General, one-time Permanent Representative of Bangladesh to the United Nations, Chairman of the UN General Assembly’s Administrative and Budgetary Committee (1997-1998), former Senior Special Adviser to UN General Assembly President (2011-2012) and President of the UN Security Council (2000 and 2001) and a two-term Vice Chairman of the all-powerful UN Committee on Programme and Coordination (1984-85).
President Donald Trump Joins Faith Leaders in Prayer – Credit: The White House
According to the UN, Sunday marked the start of World Interfaith Harmony Week, a time to emphasize that mutual understanding and interreligious dialogue are essential to building a culture of peace. The week was established to promote harmony among all people, regardless of their faith.
NEW YORK, Feb 2 2026 (IPS) – Several events, meetings, consultations, initiatives, etc. taking place among faith-inspired, ‘faith-based’ and a variety of other similar efforts, over the past year, in the United States especially, concern me.
Coming from a background of human rights, international development, and humanitarian service, I have witnessed the arc of ‘none’ to increasing interest by Western governments in ‘religion’ – religious engagement, religion and development, religion and foreign policy, religious freedom, religious peacebuilding, or religion and peace, and more, including even religion and agriculture. Basically, religion and everything.
Non-Western governments within Africa and Asia, including areas overlapping with what we call (variably) “the Middle East”, have long been interested, and indeed actively engaging religious leaders and religious institutions.
As many scholars, observers, and foreign policy pundits have noted, the interest of such governments has often transcended any genuine fascination with faith, towards rather obvious instrumentalization of religious leaders, religious organisations and religious groups, in support of specific political agendas (e.g., making peace with Israel, legitimacy of corrupt – and violent – politically repressive leaders and regimes, etc.).
In fact, the marriage between select religious leaders/institutions/groups and some political actors goes back to the empires we have inherited pre-Westphalian states).
I recall some stories from my time serving as a staff member at the United Nations, and in other international fora. The first story revolves around one Arab and one Indian diplomat speaking with a European counterpart, during one of several UN Strategic Learning Exchanges on Religion, Development and Diplomacy, which I coordinated and facilitated, this one in 2014.
The discussion concerned how best to “benefit” from working with religious leaders to affirm a message of certain political parties, especially, albeit not only, around elections. The Arab patted the European on the back and said, with a smile and a wink: “you are finally catching up on how to use these religious leaders – congratulations my friend”. The Indian one, looking bemused, added “Yes. And be careful”.
Another story concerns another meeting I organised – in one of the basement meeting rooms of the UN – between UN officials and a diverse array of religious actors, around peace and mediation efforts, in select African and Asian conflict settings, early 2015.
A European Christian religious leader of a renowned multi-religious organisation made an intervention to address the concerns about “instrumentalization” of religious actors, which some faith-based NGO leaders were articulating.
While some faith representatives cautioned against religious actors being used to “rubber stamp decisions already made by governments and some intergovernmental organisations” (in the room were both UN and EU officials), this particular Western Christian religious leader spoke up and said, “I am not worried about that at all, in fact, I would like to say to my secular colleagues in this room, please use us… we can certainly benefit you… we are not common civil society actors, our mission makes us exceptional”.
My last story, is from my time serving as the secretary general of an international multireligious organisation which convenes religious leaders from diverse religious institutions around “deeply held and widely shared values”.
As soon as I became a member of the UN Secretary-General’s High Level Advisory Board on Effective Multilateralism, I arranged a meeting between some of my multi-religious Board members (religious leaders), and some members of this high Level UN SG’s Advisory Board.
The idea was to nurture a quiet but candid dialogue between pollical and religious leaders, around why and how multilateralism can be significantly strengthened by multireligious engagement.
I hasten to note that multireligious engagement, if served well, can be – as I have written and persistently argued – resistant to instrumentalization of select religious actors to serve any one particular governmental agenda. The latter is a feature I warn against, and small wonder, given developments from India to the United States, from Russia to Israel, and beyond.
Once again, I heard a religious leader invite the members of the SG’s Board to “use” their (religious) wisdom because of their “exceptional” mission (presumably the godly one). This time, later reflection among members of the UN SG Board led to noting that such multireligious engagement would be inadvisable, due to a concern about “Muslims” involved in such multireligious spaces.
Fast forward to 2026, one year after an increasingly belligerent US Presidential Administration’s record, which includes relatively ‘minor’ policy decisions such as transforming the name of the Ministry of Defence to the “Ministry of War”. And not so minor human rights abuses of citizens and immigrants, and some pointing to manipulation and outright disregard of the rule of law, both at home and abroad (I hope this is polite enough wording). Of course one dares not mention support to certain genocidal regimes killing thousands in the name of self-protection.
In this environment, I listen to conversations among some of the United States’ most esteemed faith-based organisations, all with a remarkable track record of serving humanity in all corners of the world. Who, apparently, are seeking to engage this Administration “constructively”, with some praising the “unprecedented” outreach of members of this Administration in engaging, largely (some would say exclusively), with certain Christian NGOs, certain Christian religious leaders, and certain Christian faith protagonists – no doubt to further noble objectives. Apparently, this is a form of strategic engagement of/with religion.
Even though there were likely some who felt uncomfortable with aspects of this rhetoric, the studiously diplomatic silences – including my own – about challenging anything said, was noteworthy. The bottom line is, “we need access to the White House… we need more resources to do our (good) work”.
Why was I silent? Because I am the quintessential ‘other’ whose outspokenness has already earned me the loss of a sense of ‘home’ and security, many times over. This is neither excuse nor justification, rather, an acknowledgement of cowardice.
Into this Kafkaesque reality, let me ask a few questions I am battling with: what will it take to speak truth to power publicly – the way Minnesotans and Palestinians are having to do with their own regimes? Is it strategic to be silent, or such consummate diplomats, especially when we work in the name of the ‘godly’ – being such “exceptional” actors?
Conversely, is this Administration which we endeavour to be so tactful with, being silent about it’s “divine mission”? Is being “nice and essentially a kind person with their heart in the right place”, and doing godly work, a good reason to work with those who are serving regimes which ignore the rule of law in their own nation and abroad? Does faith-based diplomacy mean we either collude, remain silent, or take the struggle to the streets?
If so, what difference is faith-based diplomacy and engagement actually making to civic engagement, to honoring human rights and the rule of law, or to serving principled leadership? Or do these simply not matter since it is the self-interests of the ruling and rich few, are what matters to determine the integrity of life, planet and leadership?
Perhaps we should ponder the advice of the Indian Diplomat, given to his Western counterpart 22 years ago: how can we “be careful”?
Professor Azza Karam serves as President of Lead Integrity; and Director of the Kahane UN Program, for Occidental College’s Diplomacy and World Affairs.
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
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.
Trump’s proposed “Board of Peace” built around heads of state, including Russia, is structurally ill-suited to end the Israel–Hamas war and to govern postwar Gaza in any sustainable way.
NEW YORK, Jan 26 2026 (IPS) – At a press conference at the World Economic Forum in Davos last week, Trump unveiled his newly formed Board of Peace to end the Israel-Hamas war. During a press conference in the White House, he explained that he created the board because “The UN should have settled every one of the wars that I settled. I never went to them. I never even thought to go to them.”
He claimed that the Board of Peace will be dealing with ending the Israel-Hamas war in Gaza. He invited many heads of state to join the Board and threatened to impose heavy tariffs on the countries of those who refused. Paradoxically, he also invited Russian President Putin to join the pack.
Even a cursory review of the Board’s structure—its executive make-up, role, and responsibilities—makes it glaringly clear that he placed himself at the forefront of everything, from operations to ultimate decision-making. He basically codified US dominance, as long as he ran it.
He granted himself the authority to veto any decision he did not like, to invite or remove any board member, to approve the agenda, to designate his successor, and even dissolve the board entirely. Furthermore, he reserved a central role for himself even after leaving the presidency.
Shortcomings of the Board and its Structure
In more than one way, the creation of this board dissolves the American-built post-war international system and builds a new one with himself at the center. And while Trump is striving to consolidate authoritarian power domestically, he now wants to project himself on the international stage as if he were an Emperor, presiding over a board composed largely of heads of state. Although board members can have their say, they are nevertheless structurally subordinated to him.
No Seat for the Primary Stakeholders
The Board of Peace and the parallel Gaza Executive Board are designed to sit above a technocratic Palestinian committee, with no Palestinian political representative given a seat at the top table, despite their being primary stakeholders. Hamas is required to disarm, without specifying how, and to withdraw from administrative governance.
The Palestinian Authority is relegated to an “apolitical” managerial role, which in effect reproduces the long-standing problem of trying to impose solutions over Palestinians instead of negotiating with them. This has repeatedly undermined past peace frameworks and offers no pathway towards sustainable regional or world peace.
Conflict of Interests
The board is chaired by Trump himself, with membership effectively bought via a $1 billion “permanent seat” fee, creating apparent conflicts between profit, prestige, and peacemaking. Russia, Israel, Gulf monarchies, and others who have direct stakes in arms sales, regional influence, and energy routes, are not neutral guarantors but interested parties likely to instrumentalize Gaza for their own strategic agendas.
Colonial-Style Trusteeship
The architecture explicitly envisions international figures and heads of state supervising Gaza’s reconstruction, security, and governance, effectively turning Gaza into a protectorate administered by external powers.
Human rights advocates and regional observers are already criticizing this as a colonial-style trusteeship that denies genuine sovereignty, which is already generating local resistance, delegitimizing the arrangement, and providing ideological fuel for militant spoilers.
Israeli and Regional Objections
Israel’s leadership has publicly objected to the composition and design of the Gaza bodies. It is enraged over the role of Turkey and Qatar, forcing Netanyahu to distance himself from aspects of the plan even while joining the board under pressure from Trump.
Nevertheless, the Israeli government views key members of the Board and mechanisms as hostile or at odds with its security principles. Israel will either hinder implementation or hollow it out in practice, turning the board into an arena for intra-allied conflict rather than conflict resolution.
Great Power Rivalry Inside the Board
Ironically, the board anticipates concurrent participation by rivals such as Russia, the EU, and US-aligned states, while at the same time, Moscow is resisting US-backed peace terms in Ukraine and leveraging Middle East crises to weaken Western influence. This arrangement invites the board to become another theater of great power competition, where Russia, Hungary, Belarus, and others can obstruct or dilute measures that do not serve their broader geopolitical interests.
This is not to speak, of course, about the widespread concerns and suspicions among European leaders about Putin’s adversarial relations at the table, which is a recipe for discord and prevents concrete action.
Unclear Legal Basis
Another big hole in Trump’s Board is its framing as an alternative to, and possible replacement for, the United Nations, without any legal foundation, universal membership, or binding authority under international law.
A self-selected club by Trump of mostly invited heads of state, tied to a particular US administration and anchored in significant financial contributions, lacks the procedural legitimacy to impose security arrangements, adjudicate disputes, or credibly guarantee Palestinian rights over the long term, to which Trump pays no heed at all.
Overambitious, Under-Specified Mandate
The board’s responsibilities have already expanded from supervising a Gaza ceasefire to a broad charter “promoting stability” and “resolving global conflict,” which is ostentatious and will never come to fruition, while indicating mission creep before it even begins.
Such a variable mandate, with multiple overlapping structures (Board of Peace, Gaza Executive Board, Founding Executive Board), is almost guaranteed to generate bureaucratic turf wars, paralysis, and incoherence—particularly once crises beyond Gaza compete for attention and resources.
To be sure, this is just another of Trump’s stunts, always pretending that he is the only one who can come up with out-of-the-box ideas. Like many of his initiatives, this so-called Board of Peace one falls into the same category—transactional and reversible.
It is a grandiose idea that cannot be sustained structurally, has no enforcement capability, and relies on a contradictory algorithm to allow it to fulfill its mission, which, in any case, remains open-ended and unrealistic.
Dr. Alon Ben-Meir is a retired professor of international relations, most recently at the Center for Global Affairs at NYU. He taught courses on international negotiation and Middle Eastern studies.
