Share
Array
(
[0] => WP_Post Object
(
[ID] => 15641
[post_author] => 5
[post_date] => 2025-10-20 09:00:42
[post_date_gmt] => 2025-10-20 09:00:42
[post_content] => Over the last 25 years, the opioid epidemic has gone from a slow-moving wave to a tsunami. It began cresting in the late 1990s with prescription-related deaths, gathered force via heroin in 2010, and by 2014, exploded on U.S. shores with the spread of synthetic opioids. These synthetics — especially fentanyl — are 100 times more potent than morphine, cheap, easy to produce, and lethal at doses as small as two milligrams. The tragic result was that overdose deaths involving opioids rose from just over 8,000 in 1999 to nearly 82,000 by 2022 — double the number of fatal car crashes for that same year. Fentanyl factored in most of those deaths.
Thankfully, the first real signs of progress emerged last year. In 2024, CDC data showed a 27% decline in drug overdose deaths from the prior year, with hard-hit cities like Boston recording reductions of up to 56% among some populations. It was the largest decrease in overdose deaths ever recorded in the U.S.
“It is unprecedented to see predicted overdose deaths drop by more than 27,000 over a single year,” said Allison Arwady, Director of CDC’s National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. “That’s more than 70 lives saved every day.”
Origins of the Decline
Multiple factors played a role, including the widespread, data-driven distribution of naloxone — a medication that can reverse an overdose.
Another key factor: global coordination.
For that, we can thank the United Nations. Specifically, the UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) and the World Health Organization (WHO), who teamed up with American law enforcement to tackle this deadly crisis. Their partnership has saved lives and reshaped the global counternarcotics response.
A Borderless Threat
Unlike heroin or cocaine, fentanyl isn’t cultivated — it’s engineered. Manufactured in labs, it can be made virtually anywhere. Today, most precursor chemicals originate in China, are shipped to Mexico, then processed by cartels into fentanyl or fentanyl-laced drugs and trafficked north into the U.S.
This isn’t just a criminal justice issue confined to local jurisdictions; it’s a transnational problem. That’s where the UN steps in across every part of the process: public health, law enforcement and anti-trafficking.
Fentanyl isn’t a criminal justice issue confined to local jurisdictions; it’s a transnational problem. That’s where the UN steps in across every part of the process: public health, law enforcement and anti-trafficking.
UNODC: Multilateral Coordination
Based in Vienna, UNODC leads global coordination against transnational crime, including illicit drug trafficking. In 2018, it launched the Integrated Opioid Strategy — a framework based on early warning systems, prevention, law enforcement cooperation and capacity-building.
That includes improving port security in Latin America and advising governments on regulatory frameworks. UNODC has become the glue that holds international counternarcotics efforts together.
Real-Time Intelligence, Real-World Results
The UNODC-led Global SMART Programme helps countries collect and act on data related to new synthetic drug threats. U.S. enforcement agencies use that data to monitor trends — like the rise of substances even more powerful than fentanyl that are entering the market every day.
UNODC also helped launch the Container Control Program (CCP), along with the World Customs Organization (WCO), in 2004. It now operates in 74 countries to stop drug trafficking via maritime containers. In 2023, Mexico joined this global network, which was vital since the port of Manzanillo is on “the front line of the U.S. battle against fentanyl.”
These efforts have already borne fruit. In January 2024, 88 metric tons of glacial acetic acid - a chemical used in methamphetamine production - was seized at the port in Manzanillo. On July 4, there was a major seizure of precursor chemicals used in fentanyl production. These outcomes — grounded in data and enabled by UN coordination — helped drive down opioid related deaths.
Naloxone and WHO
Naloxone, which can reverse an opioid overdose within seconds, has also become critical in the fight but it took a long time to get there. While the medication was added to the WHO’s list of essential medicines in 1983, widespread adoption in the U.S. and other nations has been slow, and its use was restricted to hospitals and emergency medicine.
In 2014, WHO published guidelines recommending broader access and training. In 2017, WHO and UNODC launched the Stop Overdose Safely (SOS) initiative to expand naloxone access and training for those likely to witness overdoses. It addressed training gaps and encouraged partnerships between governments, regional organizations and civil society. These actions played a significant role in increasing support for naloxone and its availability.
The U.S. would follow suit. In 2018, the Surgeon General issued an advisory promoting broader naloxone use. By 2025, take-home naloxone became widespread, contributing to the historic decline in deaths.
Fragile Gains, Political Crossroads
The battle is far from over. A new class of opioids, including nitazenes, has emerged — many unregulated under current drug control treaties. These ultra-potent synthetics evade traditional detection, posing new risks to users and first responders.
At the same time, multilateral efforts are under attack. In January, the Trump Administration signed an executive order to withdraw the U.S. from WHO and has significantly cut funding to UNODC. Programs like the Container Control Programme and SMART depend on voluntary U.S. contributions. Funding freezes have already severely disrupted several UNODC-led efforts in Mexico and Central America — initiatives the U.S. relies on for domestic drug enforcement. These programs and offices could shut down entirely, leaving local agencies to face growing challenges alone.
The message is clear: cutting international drug control funding has real consequences — in emergency rooms, police stations and morgues across America.
"The message is clear: cutting international drug control funding has real consequences — in emergency rooms, police stations and morgues across America."
A Model for Global Drug Policy
Fentanyl may be the deadliest chapter yet in America’s opioid crisis, but it has catalyzed one of the most globally coordinated response to drugs in history. Going forward, we know that solutions must be international in scope and science-driven, harness real-time intelligence, and have sustained funding.
In 2025, we cannot take our eyes off the shore; the storm clouds remain, which means we must continue investing in global efforts and agencies that have proven so effective.
"In 2025, we cannot take our eyes off the shore; the storm clouds remain, which means we must continue investing in global efforts and agencies that have proven so effective."
[post_title] => The United Nations: America’s Partner in the Fight Against Fentanyl
[post_excerpt] => BWC Executive Director Jordie Hannum highlights how UNODC and U.S. partners worked together to drive record declines in fentanyl deaths, demonstrating how global cooperation is key to ending the opioid crisis.
[post_status] => publish
[comment_status] => closed
[ping_status] => closed
[post_password] =>
[post_name] => united-nations-americas-partner-in-the-fight-against-fentanyl
[to_ping] =>
[pinged] =>
[post_modified] => 2025-10-20 14:01:07
[post_modified_gmt] => 2025-10-20 14:01:07
[post_content_filtered] =>
[post_parent] => 0
[guid] => https://betterworldcampaign.org/?p=15641
[menu_order] => 0
[post_type] => post
[post_mime_type] =>
[comment_count] => 0
[filter] => raw
)
[1] => WP_Post Object
(
[ID] => 15978
[post_author] => 5
[post_date] => 2025-10-16 14:27:30
[post_date_gmt] => 2025-10-16 14:27:30
[post_content] => Understanding the UPR
Every five years, all 193 UN Member States undergo a Universal Periodic Review (UPR) of their human rights record. Established in 2006, the UPR is not a court and has no binding enforcement. Instead, its strength lies in transparency and universality. Every country participates. Every country is evaluated.
For the United States, the UPR is more than a mirror of domestic progress. It is also a forum to hold others to account – from governments restricting free speech to regimes targeting minorities. Washington’s participation presents an opportunity to both shape the system and the credibility to challenge others.
The UPR is more than a mirror of domestic progress. Washington’s participation presents an opportunity to shape the system and the credibility to challenge others.
How It Works
The process is straightforward. Each country submits its own national report. The UN compiles expert findings and civil society input in response. A panel of three peers leads a dialogue, producing an outcome report of recommendations, as well as the state’s responses. Governments can accept or note those recommendations, creating a public record of commitments.
As Juliette De Rivero, Chief of the UPR Branch at the UN Human Rights Office, explains: “It’s not about targeting offenders. It’s about recognizing that all states have challenges they need to confront – that they want to confront.”
"All states have challenges they need to confront – that they want to confront.”
Juliette De Rivero, Chief of the UPR Branch at the UN Human Rights Office
For countries, engagement in the UPR process signals credibility, compliance and strengthens standing in wider UN debates. “The fact is that states care deeply about how they are viewed by others,” De Rivero adds.
Real-World Impact
Critics sometimes dismiss the UPR as symbolic. In practice, it has spurred critical reforms – from criminal justice changes in Liberia and Zambia to a White House meeting on U.S. human rights implementation that Martha Davis of Northeastern University calls “a first-of-its-kind after decades of advocacy.”
For U.S. advocates, the UPR is a bridge. “Hundreds of groups prepare for it. We meet with communities, distill issues and put them on the table in Washington. It gives voice, even when fixes aren’t immediate,” Davis explains.
That bridge matters because, as ACLU’s Jamil Dakwar notes, “the UPR was designed to help governments reflect on protections at home and identify areas to improve for the benefit of everyone.”
De Rivero underscores the same point, calling the UPR one of the few global forums where government and civil society “share the same table.”
Dakwar, Director of the ACLU Human Rights Program, highlights why this distinction has special weight in U.S. debates: “Here, we often talk about civil rights, which are defined by national and state law. Human rights are more holistic. It’s this wider framework the UPR provides that helps close gaps in protecting all people.”
"The UPR was designed to help governments reflect on protections at home and identify areas to improve for the benefit of everyone.”
Jamil Dakwar, Director of the ACLU Human Rights Program
Strengths and Tensions
There’s no question there are tensions. Some Americans are uneasy with foreign governments weighing in on U.S. policy, while others see limited value in a process without strong enforcement. But those critiques overlook the purpose of the review. The UPR is not about Geneva dictating to any government; it is about dialogue and accountability.
Dakwar describes a bigger picture: “The UPR is a chance to reflect on how our own laws and constitutional commitments are being fulfilled.” At its best, it gives the U.S. a chance to show how Americans live up to the promise of our expressed national values.
“The UPR is a chance to reflect on how our own laws and constitutional commitments are being fulfilled.”
Jamil Dakwar
Universality at Risk
Since 2006, every country has completed three reviews. Israel briefly stepped backed but returned, and Nicaragua withdrew only after finishing its fourth review. No state has ever flatly refused. Now the U.S. risks becoming the first.
“If the U.S. persists, it will be the first country not to undergo its review,” warns De Rivero. “This moment is unprecedented,” Dakwar adds. The price would be high: reputational harm, diminished credibility as a human rights leader and a weaker hand in challenging others.
With official participation in doubt, American civil society groups are organizing a People’s UPR later this month. “It’s an innovative, refreshing forum,” Dakwar explains. “It shifts attention to spaces where directly affected people can testify and demand action. A place to be activated.”
Why It Matters
For the U.S., participation in the UPR signals confidence and leadership; opting out signals the opposite. As De Rivero puts it: “It’s not about perfection. It’s about persistence.” At stake are real people – farmworkers, people with disabilities, communities demanding safe water and functioning schools – for whom the UPR is a lever for visibility and progress.
But the stakes are bigger than the process itself. In a moment of heightened domestic tensions and public debate about the role of government, submitting to international scrutiny can feel like a distraction. Yet refusing engagement risks making the U.S. appear insulated. The paradox is unavoidable: if we walk away, we undercut our ability to credibly champion human rights abroad; if we stay, we accept uncomfortable scrutiny, but demonstrate the persistence and self-correction that define democratic leadership.
In an era of growing division and distrust, the harder path – showing up, being scrutinized, insisting on accountability – is the better one.
If we walk away, we undercut our ability to credibly champion human rights abroad. Withdrawal doesn’t just weaken the UPR, it weakens America.
Two U.S.-related UPR reports – one compiling UN findings and the other reflecting stakeholder input – were just released and are available online.
[post_title] => The Universal Periodic Review: A Practical Tool for Human Rights – and American Interests
[post_excerpt] => The Universal Periodic Review is an opportunity to demonstrate America's commitment to human rights. Participation shows leadership; withdrawal risks credibility.
[post_status] => publish
[comment_status] => closed
[ping_status] => closed
[post_password] =>
[post_name] => the-universal-periodic-review-a-practical-tool-for-human-rights-and-american-interests
[to_ping] =>
[pinged] =>
[post_modified] => 2025-10-16 20:21:57
[post_modified_gmt] => 2025-10-16 20:21:57
[post_content_filtered] =>
[post_parent] => 0
[guid] => https://betterworldcampaign.org/?p=15978
[menu_order] => 0
[post_type] => post
[post_mime_type] =>
[comment_count] => 0
[filter] => raw
)
[2] => WP_Post Object
(
[ID] => 15991
[post_author] => 5
[post_date] => 2025-10-13 12:14:58
[post_date_gmt] => 2025-10-13 12:14:58
[post_content] => UN peacekeeping is at an inflection point. Missions are sending thousands of troops home and scaling back operations as arrears surpass $2 billion. The United States alone owes more than $1.5 billion from underpayments over the past eight years – and this year slashed its promised peacekeeping contribution by half.
The shortfall is troubling enough, but Washington’s shift toward selective funding may foreshadow deeper challenges for the UN system.
From Collective Support to Selective Investment
Last week, the White House agreed to release $680 million in payments to the UN peacekeeping budget. On paper, this is welcome news (albeit just half of what is owed). Critical missions will get a needed infusion of cash; others, too, may see some relief. Yet peacekeeping overall remains woefully underfunded, as was made clear just days ago by the announcement from New York that around 25% of blue helmets would be pulled from the field in coming months due to budget shortfalls.
The conditions matter. For decades, U.S. contributions followed a formula that made funding predictable. When the Security Council authorized a mission – and always with U.S. backing – Member States knew the money would follow. Today, Washington is signaling something different: that dues can be partial, delayed or conditional, and that America will pay only what it chooses.
The danger isn’t just this year’s cut, but the precedent it sets. What began as collective insurance could unravel into a patchwork of à la carte donations – the very model experts have long warned against. A bipartisan U.S. report on UN reform made the point that voluntary arrangements are slow, unreliable and leave U.S. priorities underfunded.
With selective funding, what began as collective insurance could unravel into a patchwork of à la carte donations – the very model experts have long warned against.
The Paradox of Reform
There’s an irony here. Many UN reforms over the past decade, like shared IT systems, joint procurement and consolidated back offices, were championed by Washington. But these kinds of efficiencies only work if the UN is funded as an integrated whole.
Selective funding undermines that premise, as if peacekeeping or humanitarian programs can be sustained in isolation. In reality, they are mutually dependent. A peacekeeper in Lebanon relies on UNICEF education campaigns to reduce extremist recruitment. Disaster response depends on WFP supply chains that also support peacekeepers. Human rights monitors lay the groundwork for agreements that peacekeepers enforce. Increasingly, all of these rely on common systems that ensure consistency and results.
When funding is siloed, the very efficiencies the U.S. demands collapse.
When funding is siloed, the very efficiencies the U.S. demands collapse.
Haiti as a Case Study
The risks are not theoretical. Haiti is a perfect of example of what can happen when America treats UN commitments as optional.
Two years ago, the U.S. backed a Multinational Security Support (MSS) mission to help Haitian police restore order in a country just a few hundred miles from our border and where six million people face acute hunger. American commitments notwithstanding, sufficient funding never materialized, and the mission collapsed.
With the crisis in the Caribbean worsening, the U.S. just secured UN Security Council approval to expand the MSS into a full-fledged Gang Suppression Force (GSF), supported logistically by a new UN office funded through assessed contributions. But troop contributors will not deploy without guaranteed rations, fuel, housing and medical support. Already, China has accused Washington of failing to “fully honor its funding commitments” and abstained on the Security Council vote – joined by Russia and Pakistan.
That’s because this credibility gap matters: if America won’t fully fund a mission in its own neighborhood – one that directly affects U.S. security and migration – why would other countries step up elsewhere?
If America won’t fully fund a mission in its own neighborhood – one that directly affects U.S. security and migration – why would other countries step up elsewhere?
Beyond Peacekeeping
Peacekeeping may be the most visible victim, but the pattern is spreading. Increasingly, U.S. engagement looks like a buffet – funding favored agencies while starving others. That may be politically expedient on Capitol Hill but is neither sustainable nor strategic.
This debate isn’t just about dollars – it’s about direction. A selective, transactional UN may give Washington short-term leverage, but it erodes an institution the U.S. has long depended on as a force multiplier for its global leadership.
The Win-Win Still Exists
There is another way forward. If Washington supports the UN comprehensively, it not only preserves the system’s effectiveness but maximizes its own power. Reliable funding gives the U.S. the credibility to demand reforms, the stability to shape outcomes and the assurance that both allies and adversaries see Washington at the head of the table.
That is the win-win: a UN that works more effectively and a United States that strengthens its ability to lead.
Reliable funding gives the U.S. the credibility to demand reforms, the stability to shape outcomes and the assurance that both allies and adversaries see Washington at the head of the table.
[post_title] => The U.S. Should Not Selectively Fund the UN. Peacekeeping Shows Why.
[post_excerpt] => U.S. arrears now top $1.5 billion as the UN cuts 25% of peacekeepers. Against this backdrop, the situation in Haiti shows how U.S. funding decisions are impacting UN operations and U.S. credibility.
[post_status] => publish
[comment_status] => closed
[ping_status] => closed
[post_password] =>
[post_name] => the-u-s-should-not-selectively-fund-the-united-nations-peacekeeping-shows-why
[to_ping] =>
[pinged] =>
[post_modified] => 2025-10-14 14:36:39
[post_modified_gmt] => 2025-10-14 14:36:39
[post_content_filtered] =>
[post_parent] => 0
[guid] => https://betterworldcampaign.org/?p=15991
[menu_order] => 0
[post_type] => post
[post_mime_type] =>
[comment_count] => 0
[filter] => raw
)
[3] => WP_Post Object
(
[ID] => 15655
[post_author] => 5
[post_date] => 2025-10-08 15:42:49
[post_date_gmt] => 2025-10-08 15:42:49
[post_content] => In 2024, the U.S. once again ranked as the largest supplier to UN agencies, securing $2.13 billion in contracts. That’s more than the U.S. pays in dues to the UN and accounts for nearly one in ten UN contracts worldwide – a steady share that keeps jobs and dollars flowing back into towns and cities across the country.
"Every dollar we contribute in dues to the UN comes right back to U.S. businesses.”
Peter Yeo, President of the Better World Campaign
“These aren’t abstract numbers,” said Peter Yeo, President of the Better World Campaign. “They translate into real work for real Americans. Every dollar we contribute in dues to the UN comes right back to U.S. businesses.” 
In New York, contracts worth more than $815 million supported everything from vaccine distribution to management services. New Jersey saw over $182 million in UN business, with local labs and manufacturers providing critical health supplies. On the West Coast, California brought in $102 million, while Washington, DC saw $59 million – a boost for local IT and communications firms. Of special note is the win for smaller states who punched far above their weight. Maine’s economy gained $45 million, with contracts supporting logistics and research services.
American Innovation
The top categories in 2024 tell the story:
- Medicines and vaccines – $911 million, keeping American pharmaceutical know-how central to global health.
- Management and administrative services – $255 million, tapping U.S. expertise in planning and oversight.
- Engineering and research – $236 million, supporting technical jobs that anchor communities.
- Transportation and storage – $160 million, boosting everything from trucking to warehousing.
Local Impact
When UN agencies turn to American suppliers, they’re supporting local payrolls, strengthening district economies and fueling small businesses that partner with larger contractors.
“As Congress debates our role at the UN, these numbers are a powerful reminder,” Yeo said. “Engagement with the UN isn’t charity; it’s a smart investment that delivers both global leadership abroad and economic benefits at home.”
“Engagement with the UN isn’t charity; it’s a smart investment that delivers both global leadership abroad and economic benefits at home.”
[post_title] => UN Contracts Pump $2.13B into U.S. Economy
[post_excerpt] => In 2024, the U.S. secured $2.13B in UN contracts that support jobs, small businesses and local economies across America. Peter Yeo calls it “a smart investment” that pays off at home and abroad.
[post_status] => publish
[comment_status] => closed
[ping_status] => closed
[post_password] =>
[post_name] => un-contracts-bring-billions-to-american-workers
[to_ping] =>
[pinged] =>
[post_modified] => 2025-10-10 13:19:02
[post_modified_gmt] => 2025-10-10 13:19:02
[post_content_filtered] =>
[post_parent] => 0
[guid] => https://betterworldcampaign.org/?p=15655
[menu_order] => 0
[post_type] => post
[post_mime_type] =>
[comment_count] => 0
[filter] => raw
)
)
BWC Executive Director Jordie Hannum highlights how UNODC and U.S. partners worked together to drive record declines in fentanyl deaths, demonstrating how global cooperation is key to ending the opioid crisis.
The Universal Periodic Review is an opportunity to demonstrate America's commitment to human rights. Participation shows leadership; withdrawal risks credibility.
U.S. arrears now top $1.5 billion as the UN cuts 25% of peacekeepers. Against this backdrop, the situation in Haiti shows how U.S. funding decisions are impacting UN operations and U.S. credibility.
In 2024, the U.S. secured $2.13B in UN contracts that support jobs, small businesses and local economies across America. Peter Yeo calls it “a smart investment” that pays off at home and abroad.
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
Peace and Security
10/02/2025
Expert Analysis, Peace and Security
10/01/2025
Sign up for our monthly newsletter
