Another of Trump’s Quixotic Imperial Designs

Posted on January 26, 2026 by admin

Armed Conflicts, Civil Society, Crime & Justice, Democracy, Global, Headlines, Human Rights, IPS UN: Inside the Glasshouse, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion

Another of Trump’s Quixotic Imperial Designs

Credit: White House

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.

IPS UN Bureau

Source

Is the US Board of Peace Aimed at Undermining the UN?

Posted on January 26, 2026 by admin

Armed Conflicts, Civil Society, Crime & Justice, Democracy, Featured, Global, Headlines, Human Rights, IPS UN: Inside the Glasshouse, TerraViva United Nations

Htet Myat Phone Naing. Credit: Elizabeth Haines/IPS

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:

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

Source

Global Survey Finds Citizens back a World Parliament as Trust in International System Erodes

Posted on January 20, 2026 by admin

Civil Society, Democracy, Global, Global Governance, Headlines, Human Rights, International Justice, IPS UN: Inside the Glasshouse, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion

A global survey across 101 countries finds global majority support for a citizen-elected world parliament to handle global issues, reflecting widespread concern over an outdated and undemocratic international order. Credit: Democracy Without Borders

BERLIN, Germany, Jan 20 2026 (IPS) – As democracy faces pressure around the world and confidence in international law drops, a new global survey reveals that citizens in a vast majority of countries support the idea of creating a citizen-elected world parliament to deal with global issues.

The survey, commissioned by Democracy Without Borders and conducted across 101 countries representing 90% of the world’s population, finds that 40% of respondents support the proposal, while only 27% are opposed. It is the largest poll ever carried out thus far on this subject.

Support is strongest in countries of the Global South, especially Sub-Saharan Africa, and among groups often underrepresented in national political systems—young people, ethnic minorities, and those with lower income or education levels. In 85 out of 101 countries surveyed, more respondents support the idea than oppose it.

“The message is clear: people around the world are ready to expand democratic representation to the global scale,” said Andreas Bummel, Executive Director of Democracy Without Borders. “This survey shows there is a growing global constituency that wants a voice in decisions affecting humanity as a whole,” he added.

The findings come at a time when the international system is under increasing strain from climate change, war, geopolitical conflicts, authoritarian resurgence, and stalled global cooperation. The results suggest that many citizens—especially in less powerful countries—see a world parliament as a pathway to fairer and more effective global governance.

In countries with limited political freedoms, support for a world parliament is particularly high. According to Democracy Without Borders, this points to a public perception that global democratic institutions could help advance democracy at home as well.

A notable 33% of respondents globally selected a neutral stance, suggesting unfamiliarity with the concept. An analysis of the survey results argues that this indicates a wide-open space for public engagement. If the idea gains visibility, support could grow substantially, it says.

“The international system created in the last century to prevent war and mass violence is built on the United Nations. But many UN member states do not represent their people. They represent oppressive authoritarian elites who have seized power.

The proposed vision of a citizen-elected world parliament could be a vital step in the discussion about building a more democratic global order,” said Oleksandra Matviichuk, head of the Centre for Civil Liberties in Ukraine awarded with the Nobel Peace Prize.

According to the survey, net opposition found in individual countries is most concentrated in high-income democracies. “This is not a rejection of democracy. It is a reminder that privilege may breed complacency, and that those who benefit from existing arrangements may underestimate how urgently they need renewal,” commented George Papandreou, Greek Member of Parliament and former Prime Minister.

Democracy Without Borders, an international civil society organization, advocates for the establishment of a United Nations Parliamentary Assembly as a step toward a democratic world parliament. The organization says the survey results reinforce the urgency for democratic governments to consider this long-standing proposal.

IPS UN Bureau

Source

Children and Armed Conflict Must be at the Forefront of the Global Agenda

Posted on January 19, 2026 by admin

Armed Conflicts, Civil Society, Global, Global Governance, Headlines, Human Rights, International Justice, IPS UN: Inside the Glasshouse, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion

TOKYO, Japan, Jan 19 2026 (IPS) – Thirty years ago, the groundbreaking report by Graça Machel, renowned and widely respected global advocate for women’s and children’s rights, to the United Nations General Assembly laid bare the devastating impact of armed conflict on children and shook the conscience of the world. It led to the historic decision of the General Assembly to create the mandate of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Children and Armed Conflict (SRSG-CAAC).

Special Representatives of the Secretary-General are high-level envoys entrusted with carrying out specific responsibilities on behalf of the Secretary-General. Appointed at the rank of Under-Secretary-General, the SRSG-CAAC has since served as the global advocate for raising the awareness about the condition of children affected by armed conflict as well as their comprehensive protection and reintegration in the society.

Children and armed conflict as a peace and security agenda

The children and armed conflict (CAAC) agenda has evolved significantly over the past three decades. As appropriately affirmed in Security Council resolution 1261 (1999), the impact of armed conflict on children constitutes a matter affecting international peace and security. Subsequent resolutions firmly anchored the CAAC agenda within the work of the Security Council and established critical protection mechanisms.

Among the most significant of these is the Monitoring and Reporting Mechanism (MRM), created by Security Council resolution 1612 (2005). The MRM provides verified, credible, and timely information on grave violations committed against children in situations of armed conflict. It has become the backbone of the United Nations’ engagement with parties to conflict to halt such violations.

Credit: UN News

Through this mechanism, parties to conflict are encouraged to commit to ending and preventing grave violations through the development and implementation of time-bound action plans. To date, forty action plans have been concluded with parties to conflict, including non-State armed groups, in eighteen countries, resulting in full compliance by twelve parties.

UNICEF has played a pivotal role on the ground as the United Nations’ lead agency for children, supporting the operation of the MRM and monitoring the implementation of action plans.

Children and armed conflict as a fundamental child rights issue

Beyond peace and security, children and armed conflict is fundamentally a child rights issue. It was the first thematic area addressed as early as 1992 by the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child, the treaty body monitoring implementation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1989.

That initiative paved the way for the Graça Machel report and the subsequent establishment of the SRSG-CAAC mandate in 1996. It also led to the adoption, in 2000, of the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflict.

In March of this year, the Human Rights Council will dedicate its annual day on the rights of the child to children and armed conflict and is expected to adopt a related resolution, underscoring the continued relevance of this agenda.

Thirty years after the inception of the CAAC mandate

Despite these advances, grave violations against children in armed conflict reached an unprecedented 41,370 cases in 2024 alone. Calls for accountability have understandably grown louder.

The impact of armed conflict on children extends far beyond the six grave violations identified by the Security Council. Today, one in five children worldwide lives in a conflict-affected area, where the full spectrum of their rights is compromised, directly or indirectly.

This stark reality demands renewed urgency, enhanced political will, and more focused action.

Toward child rights-based and child-centred accountability

Children who are victims of armed conflict have too often been excluded from accountability processes.

Some positive developments deserve recognition. In 2023, the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court adopted a revised Policy on Children that explicitly embraces a child rights approach. In the same year, the Secretary-General’s Guidance Note on Child Rights Mainstreaming called for the systematic integration of child rights into the mandates of United Nations investigative and accountability mechanisms, including commissions of inquiry and fact-finding missions.

Accountability must be both child rights-based and child-centred. Meaningful child participation is essential. Listening to children and taking their views seriously is fundamental to justice, remedies, and healing. Accountability processes must address children’s immediate and long-term needs, including education, psychosocial support, and family reunification.

Children as peacebuilders

Children want peace. Sustainable peace is the indispensable foundation for the full realization of child rights.

The Convention on the Rights of the Child guarantees the right of children to be heard and to have their views respected in all matters affecting them. Children also have the right to reintegration and to participate in efforts aimed at restoring social cohesion within fractured and traumatized communities.

In many conflict-affected societies, children constitute more than half of the population. Their role as peacebuilders is therefore not optional—it is essential. Recognizing and empowering children as agents of peace will also reinforce both the women, peace and security agenda and the youth, peace and security agenda.

Time for renewed mobilization, in partnership with civil society and children

Graça Machel reminded us that “universal concern for children presents new opportunities to confront the problems that cause their suffering.”

Children and armed conflict goes to the very core of our shared humanity. It demands broader public awareness, stronger political commitment, and sustained global mobilization.

Civil society organizations, working alongside children themselves, have a crucial role to play in advocacy, awareness-raising, and mobilizing support for the CAAC agenda.

The Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Children and Armed Conflict, created by the General Assembly, carries a unique responsibility as the Secretary-General’s envoy to strengthen cooperation and partnerships among United Nations entities, Member States, civil society, and children themselves.

Children and armed conflict must remain at the forefront of the global agenda and be treated as a central priority by the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

Dr. Mikiko Otani, widely recognized as an international human rights lawyer, is currently the President of the Child Rights Connect, a Geneva-based global NGO network promoting child rights. She was the Chair of the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child (2021-2023) during her eight-year membership for two terms.

IPS UN Bureau

Source

The Iranian Military Is the Only Institution Capable of Catalyzing the Downfall of the Regime

Posted on January 15, 2026 by admin

Armed Conflicts, Civil Society, Featured, Global Governance, Headlines, Human Rights, International Justice, IPS UN: Inside the Glasshouse, Middle East & North Africa, TerraViva United Nations

The Iranian Military Is the Only Institution Capable of Catalyzing the Downfall of the Regime

UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, “shocked by reports of violence and excessive use of force by Iranian authorities against protesters”, is urging restraint and immediate restoration of communications, as unrest enters its third week. 11 January 2026. Credit: United Nations

NEW YORK, Jan 15 2026 (IPS) – Unlike ever before, Iran’s Islamic regime is facing a revolt led by a generation that has lost its fear. Young and old, men and women, students and workers, are flooding the streets across the country.

Iran’s future may well hinge on whether its military chooses to act and save the country, driven by economic collapse, corruption, and decades of repression. Women and girls are at the forefront, protesting without headscarves, defying the clergy that once controlled every aspect of their lives. They don’t want reform; they are demanding freedom, economic relief, and the end of authoritarianism.

Shutting down the internet, arresting nearly 17,000 protesters, killing at least 3,000, including children, and Trump’s threat to use force to stop the Iranian regime have not prevented the mullahs from continuing their onslaught. The regime’s ruthless crackdown has been a calamitous wave of repression, taking thousands of lives in a brutal attempt to crush dissent. Yet even in the face of such peril, the public remains undeterred, determined to continue their fight.

Now, however, they need the support of the most powerful domestic—not foreign—power to come to their aid. The Iranian military is the most pivotal institution in the country, capable of catalyzing the downfall of the regime. The military is the key player, with significant internal influence and the capability to drive the necessary change from within, ultimately leading to regime change.

Every officer in the military should stop and think, how do I want to serve my country.

Do I want to continue to prop up a bunch of reactionaries, self-obsessed old men who have long since lost their relevance, wearing the false robe of piety to appear sanctimonious while subjugating the people to hardship and hopelessness?

Should I not support the younger generation who are yearning for a better life, for opportunity, for a future that gives meaning to their existence?

Should I not participate in sparking the revival of this magnificent nation from the doldrums of the past 47 years that have consumed it from within?

Should I continue to prepare for war against Israel, or extend a peaceful hand and invest in building my country with such immense natural and human riches and be in the forefront of all other modern democratic and progressive nations, and restore the glory of ancient Persia?

Do I truly want to continue to wear blinders and let my country be destroyed from within, or should I become part of a newly reborn nation and take personal pride in helping to revive it?

The answer to these questions should be clear to every officer. The military should establish a transitional government and pave the way for a legitimate, freely elected government, and restore the Iranian people’s dignity and their right to be free.

The idea that the Shah’s son, Reza Pahlavi, could return and restore a monarchy is just the opposite of what the Iranian people need. Instead of another form of corruption or an old kingdom, they deserve a democracy and genuine freedom.

In the final analysis, Iran’s destiny may rest on a single profound choice—whether its military steps forward to reshape the nation’s destiny.

Source

Is the US Moving Towards the UN’s Exit Door?

Posted on January 13, 2026 by admin

Civil Society, Featured, Global, Global Governance, Headlines, International Justice, IPS UN: Inside the Glasshouse, TerraViva United Nations

Credit: United Nations

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

Source

Malawi Diaspora

Posts Tagged: IPS UN: Inside the Glasshouse

Another of Trump’s Quixotic Imperial Designs

Is the US Board of Peace Aimed at Undermining the UN?

Global Survey Finds Citizens back a World Parliament as Trust in International System Erodes

Children and Armed Conflict Must be at the Forefront of the Global Agenda

The Iranian Military Is the Only Institution Capable of Catalyzing the Downfall of the Regime

Is the US Moving Towards the UN’s Exit Door?