Share
Array
(
[0] => WP_Post Object
(
[ID] => 16134
[post_author] => 5
[post_date] => 2025-11-07 17:58:41
[post_date_gmt] => 2025-11-07 17:58:41
[post_content] => On Nov. 6, the UN Security Council lifted sanctions on Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa. The move came months after President Trump rescinded Executive Branch sanctions in June, saying, “Now it’s their time to shine... Show us something special.” The line drew attention in Washington. To Syrians, it sounded like a test. And whether they pass or fail will hinge on engagement from the international community – especially the United States – to back those words with meaningful support.
“Now is [the time for Syria] to shine... Show us something special.”
President Trump, speaking on lifting sanctions on Syria
That test will now play out on American soil. On Nov. 10, the Syrian President will visit Washington; a first for a country that declared its independence in 1946. His trip follows a historic appearance at the UN General Assembly in September, where he became the first Syrian president in nearly six decades to address the world body. His planned meeting with President Trump offers a rare diplomatic opening – and a measure of whether the Administration’s rhetoric about helping Syria “shine” will be matched by investments in stability.
Fourteen years of war have reduced seventy percent of the country’s infrastructure to rubble and pushed one in nine people below the poverty line. Before the conflict, Syria’s economy was worth roughly $67 billion. Adjusted for inflation, it should be more than double that today. Instead, last year its real GDP stood at just US$13 billion – an 80 percent collapse.
And yet, a few streets away from bombed-out blocks in the country’s capital, a different picture of Syria emerges. The souq I visited last month in Damascus hummed with life, cafés spilling onto sidewalks. Children headed off to one of the more than 530 schools that reopened this year. The scars of war are everywhere, but so too is the spirit of resilience.
The future of the country hangs in the balance between these versions of Syria – one in rubble and one in renewal. Without a decisive surge of resources and partnerships, that fragile progress may collapse.
With the right support, it could take root and transform the region’s trajectory. A Syria able to provide basic services and jobs not only prevents the outflow of refugees and inflow of adversaries, but represents an opportunity for economic development and stability that benefits everyone – including the U.S – with private sector at the helm.
This is Syria’s perishable moment.
A Syria able to provide basic services and jobs... represents an opportunity for economic development and stability that benefits everyone – including the U.S – with private sector at the helm.
For more than a decade, Washington has provided nearly US$50 billion into life-saving humanitarian aid in the country. That commitment has kept people alive – shelter, food rations and emergency medical care – but it was never designed to last forever. Today, the needs are shifting. Families who once sought shelter now seek steady paychecks and food security.
The good news is that a partner already stands ready to help seize this moment: the United Nations.
Unlike short-term aid groups, UN agencies are built for this exact stage of transition. The UN's comparative advantage is not parachuting in with parallel systems, but wiring core public functions back into place – powering water plants, digitizing health services, rehabilitating schools and restoring municipal functions. They work through local networks and can partner with diaspora talent and leading global NGOs to build capacity that lasts rather than quick fixes that fade.
UN agencies are built for this exact stage of transition... not parachuting in with parallel systems, but wiring core public functions back into place.
Take food subsidies. Each day, the World Food Programme provides bread to two million Syrians. “Food security is national security,” a WFP official told me on that same trip to Damascus. Bread is more than calories; it’s a deterrent against militia recruitment, communal violence and forced migration.
And it’s not only the big programs. The UN’s strength lies equally in the small interventions that add up. A $500 grant enables a farmer to restart a market. Solar panels keep the doors of a clinic open. These modest, medium-term measures mark the difference between a country stuck in perpetual emergency and one able to stand on its feet.
The UN is also a critical resource for the more than one million Syrians who have returned home to rebuild. These returnees bring capital, skills and a willingness to invest in the future of their country – only if the basic conditions of stability are there.
The upcoming Trump-al-Sharaa meeting underscores that alignment. It represents an opportunity for the United States to shape Syria’s post-war trajectory, to secure cooperation against lingering terrorist threats and to channel reconstruction through transparent, UN-led frameworks that serve both humanitarian and strategic goals.
Washington has a choice. We can drift into another decade of costly humanitarian triage, spending billions to keep people barely afloat. Or we can back a focused UN-led surge that restores the basics, helps refugees go home, fosters business growth and allows America to exit with success.
If helping Syria “shine” is truly a priority of the Administration, now’s the moment. The president’s visit to Washington is not just symbolic; it’s a test of whether we see Syria’s fragile peace as a liability to manage or a chance to lead. Because this perishable moment won’t last – and the UN can help us seize it.
This perishable moment won’t last. The UN can help us seize it.
[post_title] => President Saraa is Coming to Washington: How U.S. Backing Can Preserve Syria's Perishable Moment
[post_excerpt] => As Syria’s president visits Washington, the U.S. faces a pivotal choice: renew support for Syria’s recovery and the UN — or risk another regional collapse.
[post_status] => publish
[comment_status] => closed
[ping_status] => closed
[post_password] =>
[post_name] => syrias-president-is-coming-to-washington-what-americans-stand-to-gain-and-the-un-is-poised-to-deliver
[to_ping] =>
[pinged] =>
[post_modified] => 2025-11-08 23:49:29
[post_modified_gmt] => 2025-11-08 23:49:29
[post_content_filtered] =>
[post_parent] => 0
[guid] => https://betterworldcampaign.org/?p=16134
[menu_order] => 0
[post_type] => post
[post_mime_type] =>
[comment_count] => 0
[filter] => raw
)
[1] => WP_Post Object
(
[ID] => 16118
[post_author] => 5
[post_date] => 2025-11-04 02:30:50
[post_date_gmt] => 2025-11-04 02:30:50
[post_content] => Often called the world’s top diplomat, the Secretary-General (SG) of the United Nations is part CEO, part crisis manager and full-time advocate for eight billion people. One predecessor famously described it as “the most impossible job on earth.”
As Americans head to the polls, the UN is preparing for an election of its own – the selection of the next Secretary-General in 2026. Here’s a look at how that process works, and why it matters more than ever.
Step 1 – Nominations Open
About a year before the current SG's term ends, the presidents of the UN Security Council and the General Assembly send out a joint letter inviting Member States to nominate candidates.
Anyone backed by a country can run – typically a former head of government, foreign minister or senior diplomat. In 2016, for the first time, candidates published their résumés and vision statements online – a major step toward transparency in what had long been a closed process.
Step 2 – Security Council Shortlist
The real competition begins inside the 15-member Security Council. Behind closed doors, ambassadors conduct a series of “straw polls,” marking each candidate as encourage, discourage or no opinion.
The five Permanent Members – the United States, Russia, China, France and the United Kingdom – use color-coded ballots so others can see if a P5 member objects. A single “no” from any of them can end a campaign.
After several rounds – it took six in 2016 – one candidate usually emerges without a P5 veto. Only then does the Council hold a formal vote to recommend that person to the General Assembly.
Step 3 – General Assembly Approval
From there, the 193-member General Assembly votes to appoint the Security Council’s nominee – usually by acclamation, meaning applause rather than a roll call.
The Secretary-General serves a five-year term, renewable once, a convention broken only once in UN history. The process reflects the UN’s delicate balance of power: every country gets a say, but no one gets the job without the P5’s approval.
The Unwritten Rules
Much of what determines the outcome isn’t written down, but it shapes every race.
-
No Superpower Nationals: No citizen of a P5 country has ever become Secretary-General, as it would be viewed as biased.
-
Regional Rotation: The job informally rotates among world regions. After an African (Kofi Annan) came an Asian (Ban Ki-moon) then a European (António Guterres). Many expect the next SG to come from Latin America.
-
Two-Term Tradition: Most SGs serve two terms if they keep the major powers onside. Only one – Boutros Boutros-Ghali – was denied a second term when the U.S. cast a lone veto in 1996.
Reform and the Road Ahead
For decades, the SG selection was a backroom deal among big powers. That began to change in 2015 with the “1 for 7 Billion” campaign, which pushed for open nominations, public candidate lists and hearings before the General Assembly.
The 2016 contest was the most transparent in UN history. Candidates faced public Q&A sessions, as well as engagement with the media and civil society.
With Guterres’s second term ending in 2026 (he began his second term on January 1, 2022), the next race is set to unfold under even greater scrutiny. Candidates must publish vision statements, disclose campaign donors and step aside from any UN posts to avoid conflicts of interest.
There’s also growing momentum for a historic first: electing a woman. After eight decades and nine men, many diplomats and activists say it’s time for the UN’s leadership to reflect its own values of equality and representation.
Who’s Already in the Running?
While the race to lead the UN is just beginning, three contenders have already stepped forward – each bringing distinct experience and style. Michelle Bachelet of Chile, twice elected president and later the UN’s top human rights official; Rebeca Grynspan of Costa Rica, a former vice president and now head of the UN Conference on Trade and Development; and Rafael Grossi of Argentina, the longtime chief of the International Atomic Energy Agency.
More nominations are expected as Member States test the political winds in New York ahead of the formal start to the race.
Why It Matters
The UN Charter calls the Secretary-General the “chief administrative officer” of the organization. In practice, the role blends diplomacy, leadership and moral authority – “equal parts diplomat and advocate, civil servant and CEO,” as the UN describes it.
And while the Secretary-General may not be a world president, their influence is profound – from rallying humanitarian aid to mediating conflicts and holding the powerful accountable. Ensuring that the planet's top diplomat is chosen openly and fairly isn’t just bureaucratic housekeeping – it’s democracy on a global stage.
[post_title] => Becoming Secretary-General: How the World’s Top Diplomat Gets the Job
[post_excerpt] => As the UN prepares to elect a new Secretary-General in 2026, here’s how the world’s top diplomat is chosen — and why the process matters.
[post_status] => publish
[comment_status] => closed
[ping_status] => closed
[post_password] =>
[post_name] => becoming-secretary-general-how-the-worlds-top-diplomat-gets-the-job
[to_ping] =>
[pinged] =>
[post_modified] => 2025-11-05 02:53:07
[post_modified_gmt] => 2025-11-05 02:53:07
[post_content_filtered] =>
[post_parent] => 0
[guid] => https://betterworldcampaign.org/?p=16118
[menu_order] => 0
[post_type] => post
[post_mime_type] =>
[comment_count] => 0
[filter] => raw
)
[2] => WP_Post Object
(
[ID] => 16092
[post_author] => 5
[post_date] => 2025-10-30 17:52:55
[post_date_gmt] => 2025-10-30 17:52:55
[post_content] => In eastern Congo, UN peacekeepers are packing up. The barracks that once shielded families from armed groups will soon stand empty. Helicopters that ferried the wounded to safety are being grounded. Within weeks, 13,000-14,000 peacekeepers – approximately one out of every four deployed worldwide – will be sent home.
This isn’t because wars are ending or missions are completed. In fact, violence in the Democratic Republic of Congo, the Sahel and the Middle East is intensifying.
It’s because the United States – the UN’s largest donor – has failed to pay its bills.
UN peacekeepers are packing up... because the United States – the UN’s largest donor – has failed to pay its bills.
In the past 3 months, the Administration has clawed back more than $800 million in funds that Congress already approved for UN peacekeeping and pledged barely half of what’s owed to peacekeeping this year – $680 million. On top of that, for the last eight years the U.S. has chronically underfunded every mission, racking up arrears of over $1.5 billion.
The result? The UN is being forced to undertake the steepest retrenchment in peacekeeping history.
Fragile states will feel it first, as blue helmets disappear from frontlines where they deter militias and protect civilians. Families who once slept under the guard of UN troops will be left to the mercy of armed groups.
The UN is being forced to undertake the steepest retrenchment in peacekeeping history.
But make no mistake: the fallout will not stop in Congo or Mali or Lebanon. Pulling back peacekeepers while violence rages isn’t just abandonment abroad; it kicks the door wide open for bad actors to take the reins and is a direct blow to America’s credibility when it matters most.
How Those Choices Hurt the U.S.
Today, about 60,000 soldiers and police serve in 11 UN peacekeeping missions. Under the new plan, that number will shrink to around 46,000. The consequence of that drawdown will be measured in security setbacks and lost opportunities for American influence.
Take the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). Undercutting the peacekeeping mission in country, known as MONUSCO, cripples a vehicle that can operationalize President Trump’s peace deal on the ground. In fact, on the same day the initial agreement was signed at the White House, then acting U.S.-UN Representative Dorothy Shea stated, “Now more than ever, to support implementation of the peace agreement, MONUSCO must be empowered and enabled to execute the tasks that we, the Security Council, have given it.” The success of the peace agreement currently in question is the pivot point around which the DRC will either align with Beijing or with Washington – and determine which superpower gains access to one of the largest critical mineral deposits in the world.
Or Lebanon. Cutting the peacekeeping mission there, known as UNIFIL, takes away the pressure on Beirut to move its own army into areas once controlled by Hezbollah. That deployment is central to keeping the peace deal with Israel on track and to President Trump’s push to curb Iran’s influence. The mission’s stabilizing role also opens the door for U.S.-led energy investment in the eastern Mediterranean.
Or Haiti. Cutting resources for the UN Support Office in Haiti, UNSOH, risks throwing away a major diplomatic win: UN approval for a tough, non-U.S. force to take on the gangs and terrorists who’ve turned the country into one of the Western Hemisphere’s biggest trafficking hubs. Just 90 minutes from Miami, it’s a direct threat to the American homeland in the form of drugs, illegal weapons and human trafficking.
In case after case, when peacekeepers pull out – just as Washington advances plans for peace and stability – it’s not just inconsistency, it’s self-sabotage.
When peacekeepers pull out – just as Washington advances plans for peace and stability – it’s not just inconsistency, it’s self-sabotage.
The False Economy of Defunding
Supporters of these cuts call them fiscal discipline. The numbers say otherwise. Peacekeeping accounts for only 0.02% percent of the federal budget. For that price, the U.S. pays just one-quarter of the bill while allies cover the rest – every American dollar brings in three more from partners. The alternative is U.S. troops in harm’s way. The Government Accountability Office has found that comparable U.S. operations cost American taxpayers eight times more than a UN mission. Slashing peacekeeping doesn’t save money; it guarantees far costlier interventions tomorrow, with American blood and treasure on the line.
Slashing peacekeeping doesn’t save money; it guarantees far costlier interventions tomorrow, with American blood and treasure on the line.
As Admiral Mike Mullen, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs under Presidents Bush and Obama, put it: “UN peacekeepers help promote stability and help reduce the risks that major U.S. military interventions may be required. Therefore, the success of these operations is very much in our national interest.”
Vacuums Don’t Stay Empty
There is also the question of credibility.
Every peacekeeping mission facing cuts was authorized by the UN Security Council with U.S. support. To retreat now is to retreat from commitments Washington itself demanded. Allies see that gap – so do adversaries.
Every peacekeeping mission facing cuts was authorized by the UN Security Council with U.S. support.
And history has shown what happens when blue helmets leave. Violence against civilians spike; sexual and gender-based violence increase. Across parts of Africa, ISIS is surging due to the drawdown in UN forces. In Mali, Wagner Group mercenaries rushed in to fill the void.
In addition, China, already the second-largest funder of peacekeeping, uses its contributions to expand influence and access across Africa and beyond. Undermining UN peacekeeping doesn’t reduce instability. It hands ground to rival nations or insurgent groups whose interests run counter to America’s.
Reform Without Retreat
No one denies that reform is necessary. UN Secretary-General António Guterres has already offered to cut thousands of posts under his UN80 reform agenda. But there is a difference between efficiency and erosion. Reform means tightening operations and cutting duplication. Retreat means hollowing out the very missions that keeps fragile states from collapsing.
Reform means tightening operations and cutting duplication. Retreat means hollowing out the very missions that keeps fragile states from collapsing.
As Guterres himself has reminded Member States, peacekeeping “represents a tiny fraction of global military spending – around one half of one percent – yet remains one of the most effective and cost-effective tools to build international peace and security.”
A Decision Point for Congress
Congress still has the power to prevent this retreat. Lawmakers can pay down the $1.5 billion in arrears, ensure money they approved is spent in full and insist on accountability without gutting the system. Peacekeeping is burden-sharing at its best – a force multiplier that protects American interests while spreading costs across 193 nations.
If the United States refuses to pay, the consequences will not stop at abandoned UN bases in Congo, grounded helicopters in Lebanon, a surge in ISIS across the Sahel, or a further breakdown in Haiti. They will land in Washington – in higher costs, greater demands at our border, diminished alliances and weakened credibility.
And when the next crisis demands a response, America will be left to go it alone at a far higher price.
[post_title] => America’s Funding Cuts Are Forcing the UN to Slash Peacekeeping Forces
[post_excerpt] => The UN is cutting 25% of global forces - the largest drawdown in history - owing largely to U.S. funding cuts. As 14,000 troops leave vulnerable hotspots, our experts explore the impact on U.S. credibility and security.
[post_status] => publish
[comment_status] => closed
[ping_status] => closed
[post_password] =>
[post_name] => americas-funding-cuts-force-the-un-to-slash-peacekeeping-forces
[to_ping] =>
[pinged] =>
[post_modified] => 2025-10-31 15:14:44
[post_modified_gmt] => 2025-10-31 15:14:44
[post_content_filtered] =>
[post_parent] => 0
[guid] => https://betterworldcampaign.org/?p=16092
[menu_order] => 0
[post_type] => post
[post_mime_type] =>
[comment_count] => 0
[filter] => raw
)
[3] => WP_Post Object
(
[ID] => 16049
[post_author] => 5
[post_date] => 2025-10-27 20:15:06
[post_date_gmt] => 2025-10-27 20:15:06
[post_content] => If you’ve been following our blog, you know we’ve sounded the alarm on rescissions before. We’re back at it. Because while rescissions may sound like budget jargon, they carry very real consequences for U.S. security, credibility and global leadership.
At the end of August, the Trump Administration announced it was pulling back nearly $4.9 billion in foreign assistance funds – just weeks before the fiscal year ended. This wasn’t a routine trim. It was a maneuver called a pocket rescission.
Rescissions 101: What are Pocket Rescissions?
Pocket rescissions target money with fewer than 45 days left in the fiscal year. If Congress can’t act fast enough – say, the House is out on recess – the funds expire on September 30. Which means Congress’ constitutional “power of the purse” is sidelined.
What Was Cut
The cuts zero in on (and sometimes out) three accounts central to U.S. foreign policy.
- CIO (Contributions to International Organizations): $520.5 million
CIO pays U.S. dues to NATO, the United Nations, the Organization of American States and treaty bodies like the International Atomic Energy Agency. Pulling this weakens nuclear inspections and counterterror finance monitoring.
- CIPA (UN Peacekeeping): $392.5 million
CIPA cuts impact U.S. contributions to UN peacekeeping, undermining missions in Haiti, the DRC, Mali and Lebanon. That means soldiers go unpaid. And because many of those nations contribute troops to multiple operations, one U.S. funding shortfall ripples across the globe, from Africa to Eastern Europe. That also means fewer boots on the ground fighting instability, more space for extremists to operate and greater pressure for American forces needed to fill the gap.
- PKO (Peacekeeping Operations): $444.9M
Consequences? Less support for African Union forces fighting al-Shabaab in Somalia and reduces U.S. training for partner militaries.
What's notable is that these cuts undermine the very policies the Administration successfully advanced in recent months.
Take Haiti. This month, the U.S. drafted the Security Council resolution to stand up a multinational Gang Suppression Force (GSF) to help stabilize the country. To be clear, the U.S. will not be sending American troops; success depends on persuading other countries to contribute soldiers and police. But those governments need assurances that their personnel won’t be left stranded without proper funding, equipment and support. With peacekeeping funds slashed, Washington’s leverage is weaker. Put simply: why would another country risk sending its forces into Haiti’s volatile streets if they’re already going unpaid for deployments elsewhere?
Or look at the Democratic Republic of Congo. After helping broker a peace deal, the U.S. is relying on the UN’s peacekeeping mission in country – known as MONUSCO - to enforce it. Yet MONUSCO is already planning a 25% troop drawdown because of budget shortfalls. Add in the fact that the U.S. hasn’t paid its full peacekeeping bill this year and is sitting on $1.5 billion in arrears and it’s little wonder allies question America’s staying power.
Then there’s Gaza. With the region at a breaking point, senior U.S. officials are discussing an international stabilization force with American backing – and a UN mandate. This is because for many nations, they demand the world body's approval to deploy troops. And just as in Haiti, countries will only provide soldiers if the U.S. has skin in the game, which means paying our peacekeeping share in full. Right now, we haven’t.
The bottom line: for the Administration’s ambitious solutions at the UN to take hold, you can’t hollow out the very accounts that make them possible. Doing so doesn’t just weaken missions and reduce the likelihood to attract troop contributing countries – it weakens U.S. leverage and leaves space for China and Russia to step in.
What Happens Next
Fortunately, it’s not too late to claw back the clawback. Even though the funds technically expired on September 30, Congress can retroactively preserve them in a future appropriations bill. Doing so would go a long way to bolstering U.S. credibility with allies, protecting U.S. foreign policy and blunting our adversaries.
So yes, we’re still talking about rescissions. Because while it might sound like an obscure budget footnote, they determine whether the U.S. leads – or leaves a vacuum for others to fill.
[post_title] => We’re Still Talking About Rescissions. That's Because Congress Can Still Act.
[post_excerpt] => The Administration's nearly $5B pocket rescission slashes U.S. funding for UN peacekeeping and international organizations. Congress can still act to restore America’s global influence.
[post_status] => publish
[comment_status] => closed
[ping_status] => closed
[post_password] =>
[post_name] => were-still-talking-about-rescissions-because-congress-can-still-act
[to_ping] =>
[pinged] =>
[post_modified] => 2025-10-27 23:43:54
[post_modified_gmt] => 2025-10-27 23:43:54
[post_content_filtered] =>
[post_parent] => 0
[guid] => https://betterworldcampaign.org/?p=16049
[menu_order] => 0
[post_type] => post
[post_mime_type] =>
[comment_count] => 0
[filter] => raw
)
)
As Syria’s president visits Washington, the U.S. faces a pivotal choice: renew support for Syria’s recovery and the UN — or risk another regional collapse.
As the UN prepares to elect a new Secretary-General in 2026, here’s how the world’s top diplomat is chosen — and why the process matters.
The UN is cutting 25% of global forces - the largest drawdown in history - owing largely to U.S. funding cuts. As 14,000 troops leave vulnerable hotspots, our experts explore the impact on U.S. credibility and security.
The Administration's nearly $5B pocket rescission slashes U.S. funding for UN peacekeeping and international organizations. Congress can still act to restore America’s global influence.
Expert Analysis, Peace and Security
11/07/2025
Blog, UN Explained
11/04/2025
Budget, Expert Analysis, Peace and Security
10/30/2025
Expert Analysis, Peace and Security
10/20/2025
Blog, Human Rights
10/16/2025
Budget, Expert Analysis, Peace and Security
10/13/2025
Budget, Statement
10/08/2025
Sign up for our monthly newsletter
