Officially known as Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ), the legally binding UN treaty covers ocean areas beyond national waters (i.e. the “high seas”) and the international seabed area. These regions constitute two thirds of the surface of […]
Originally published at Almouwatin.com
حكمت على متروبوليت كيروفغراد جواساف (جوبين) Remove the water from the water. وهم متهمون بالتحريض على الكراهية الدينية وتبرير الاحتلال الروسي لأراضي جنوب وشرق أوكرانيا. لقد فعلوا ذلك بمساعدة المواد المكتوبة والكتب الروسية والتعليمات الشفهية لأجنحتهم الكهنوتية. وبحسب لائحة الاتهام، […]
Originally published at Almouwatin.com
By :
Bashy Quraishy :Secretary General – EMISCO -European Muslim Initiative for Social Cohesion – Strasbourg
Thierry Valle :Coordination des Associations et des Particuliers pour la Liberté de Conscience
On January 7, 2026, US President Donald Trump signed a presidential memorandum directing the immediate withdrawal of the United States from 66 international organizations, including 31 United Nations entities and 35 non-UN organizations. This decision represents one of the largest rollbacks of US participation in multilateral institutions in modern history, raising concerns about the future of international cooperation at a time when global stability faces unprecedented threats.
The Scope of American Disengagement
According to the White House memorandum titled “Withdrawing the United States from International Organizations, Conventions, and Treaties that Are Contrary to the Interests of the United States,” the withdrawal encompasses organizations that the administration deems “contrary to the interests of the United States.” The directive orders all executive departments and agencies to “take immediate steps to effectuate the withdrawal” as soon as possible. For United Nations entities, this means ceasing both participation and funding to the extent permitted by law.
The 31 UN entities targeted for withdrawal include critical operational bodies such as the UN Population Fund, UN Entity for Gender Equality, and the Empowerment of Women (UN Women), the Office of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Children in Armed Conflict, the Peacebuilding Commission, and the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. The list also encompasses five regional economic commissions under the Economic and Social Council, covering Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean, Asia and the Pacific, and Western Asia.
Among the 35 non-UN organizations, the withdrawal affects the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the International Renewable Energy Agency, the International Solar Alliance, the Global Counterterrorism Forum, the Science and Technology Center in Ukraine, and the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance. These organizations address issues ranging from climate change and renewable energy to counterterrorism, democracy promotion, and scientific cooperation.
United Nations Response: Legal Obligations Remain Binding
In response to the White House announcement, UN Secretary-General António Guterres issued a statement on January 8, 2026, expressing regret over the decision. UN Spokesman Stéphane Dujarric conveyed the Secretary-General’s position during the daily press briefing, emphasizing that “assessed contributions to the United Nations regular budget and the peacekeeping budget, as approved by the General Assembly, are a legal obligation under the UN Charter for all Member States, including the United States.”
The UN’s response underscored a fundamental legal principle: treaty obligations cannot be unilaterally discarded. Dujarric clearly stated that “contributions to the budget, the regular budget, and the peacekeeping budget are treaty obligations.
The operative word being obligations; it’s in the Charter. So, Member States who signed, who’ve joined this club have to pay the dues.”
The United Nations confirmed that the US did not pay its assessed contributions throughout 2025, creating significant financial strain on the organization. Despite this, Dujarric emphasized that “all United Nations entities will go on with the implementation of their mandates as given to us by Member States” and that “the United Nations has a responsibility to deliver for all those who depend on us, and we will continue to carry out our mandates with determination.”
When pressed about the implications of a permanent Security Council member disregarding legal obligations, Dujarric noted that UN Article 19 stipulates that those countries failing to pay dues for a certain period may lose voting rights in the General Assembly, though this provision does not extend to Security Council participation.
Financial and Operational Implications
The withdrawal creates immediate financial pressure on organizations that depend on US contributions. The UN Spokesman acknowledged that the organization has been managing under financial pressure for some time, noting that “the US didn’t pay last year. Other Member States paid later than they had we had expected.” He described the Secretary-General’s financial management responsibilities as requiring him to “juggle financial cash flow, that I think would make the head spin of any CEO or Head of Government.”
Beyond immediate funding concerns, the withdrawal threatens the operational capacity of entities focused on peacebuilding, humanitarian assistance, gender equality, and protection of vulnerable populations. The Peacebuilding Commission and Peacebuilding Fund, both on the withdrawal list, play essential roles in post-conflict recovery efforts. The Office of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Children in Armed Conflict and the Office of the Special Representative on Sexual Violence in Conflict address protection needs in war zones, including current conflicts in Ukraine, Gaza, and Syria.
The withdrawal from climate-related entities is particularly significant, given the global nature of climate change. The decision affects not only the Paris Agreement—from which the US previously withdrew and rejoined—but the foundational 1992 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change itself. By targeting this Senate-ratified treaty, the administration’s move is expected to face legal challenges regarding the president’s authority to unilaterally withdraw from such agreements.
Dangers to Peace in an Unstable World
The timing of this withdrawal raises acute concerns about international stability. The current global landscape is marked by active conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza, tensions surrounding Taiwan, ongoing instability in Syria, humanitarian crises in South Sudan and Yemen, and escalating climate emergencies. In this context, withdrawing from organizations designed to facilitate cooperation, prevent conflicts, and coordinate humanitarian responses potentially undermines the fragile balance that international institutions help maintain.
The Science and Technology Center in Ukraine appears on the withdrawal list at a moment when Ukraine faces continued attacks on its energy infrastructure. According to UN reports from January 8, 2026, recent strikes across Ukraine left nearly 2 million people without electricity in temperatures near freezing, with attacks described by Dnipro’s mayor as “among the largest combined attacks since the start of the full-scale war.” The center, which facilitates scientific cooperation related to non-proliferation and security, was established specifically to redirect former Soviet weapons scientists toward civilian research.
Similarly, the withdrawal from peacebuilding mechanisms occurs as the UN documents escalating conflicts. In South Sudan, renewed fighting since December 29, 2025, has displaced approximately 100,000 people, mostly women, children, and elderly individuals. In Syria, the UN Secretary-General expressed grave alarm about escalating hostilities in Aleppo, with tens of thousands displaced and mounting civilian casualties. These situations exemplify the contexts where UN peacebuilding entities work to prevent conflict escalation and support stabilization efforts.
The UN Democracy Fund and the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, both targeted for withdrawal, support democratic institutions and electoral processes globally. Their absence from US support may weaken democratic resilience in countries facing authoritarian pressures or attempting post-conflict transitions.
International Reactions and Broader Context
International media coverage has highlighted the unprecedented scale of the withdrawal. Al Jazeera reported that many of the targeted organizations focus on climate, labor, migration, and other issues, the Trump administration has categorized as catering to diversity and “woke” initiatives. The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists characterized the decision as turning “his back on science, facts, reason,” noting that the administration is moving beyond individual agreements to exit “the entire international framework for climate negotiations.”
The Press Pad analysis emphasized that the significant changes would lead the US to withdraw from key forums focused on climate change, peace, and democracy. Le Monde covered the decision as part of a broader pattern of American disengagement from multilateral frameworks, placing it in the context of previous withdrawals from the Paris Agreement, the Iran nuclear deal, and the World Health Organization.
During the UN press briefing, journalists questioned, whether this decision signals the death of multilateralism. Secretary-General Guterres, through his spokesperson refused to write such an obituary, stating that “António Guterres will not write it.” Instead, the UN emphasized that the Secretary-General “strongly believes that the challenges that we face today can only be solved through international cooperation.”
When asked whether the UN itself has become “à la carte,” Dujarric responded that “the UN is an organization of 193 Member States and two observer States. It is in the interest of all these Member States and the two observers to defend the principles that they themselves have created.”
Civil Society Under Pressure
The withdrawal directly impacts civil society organizations that partner with or receive support through UN entities. UN Women, which appears on the withdrawal list, coordinates with thousands of civil society organizations globally to advance gender equality and women’s empowerment. The UN Population Fund works with civil society partners on reproductive health, maternal health, and population data collection. The UN Democracy Fund provides direct grants to civil society organizations working on democratic governance, human rights, and civic participation.
The Office of the Special Representative on Violence Against Children collaborates with civil society networks to document abuse, advocate for protective policies, and support rehabilitation programs. Its removal from US support may reduce capacity to address child protection in conflict zones and humanitarian emergencies.
Environmental civil society organizations similarly face challenges with the US withdrawal from entities such as the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, the International Union for Conservation of Nature, and the UN Collaborative Program on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation. These organizations facilitate scientific research, advocacy, and community-based conservation efforts that depend on international coordination and funding.
The Role of International Law and Treaty Obligations
A fundamental question raised by the withdrawal concerns the relationship between national sovereignty and international legal obligations. The UN Charter, which the United States signed and ratified in 1945, establishes specific financial obligations for member states. Article 19 of the Charter states that members in arrears may lose voting privileges in the General Assembly if arrears equal or exceed contributions due for the preceding two full years, unless the failure to pay is due to conditions beyond the member’s control.
The UN’s legal position is unambiguous: assessed contributions are not voluntary donations but legally binding obligations. The Secretary-General, as the chief administrative officer, lacks authority to waive these obligations or negotiate their reduction. Only the General Assembly, acting collectively, can modify the assessment scale or address non-payment issues.
The withdrawal from the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change presents additional legal complexity because it is a Senate-ratified treaty. Constitutional questions arise regarding whether the executive branch can unilaterally withdraw from treaties that received Senate advice and consent. Legal scholars note that while some treaties contain explicit withdrawal provisions, the constitutional distribution of treaty-making powers between the executive and legislative branches remains contested.
Implications for Global Governance
The withdrawal challenges the post-1945 international order built on multilateral institutions and shared governance frameworks. The United Nations system was designed to prevent the kind of unilateral action that led to World War II, creating mechanisms for collective decision-making, dispute resolution, and coordinated responses to transnational challenges.
By withdrawing from 31 UN entities, the United States signals a preference for bilateral relationships and ad hoc coalitions over standing multilateral institutions. This approach may offer flexibility but risks fragmenting global responses to problems that transcend national borders, including pandemics, climate change, nuclear proliferation, terrorism, and mass migration.
The withdrawal from regional economic commissions under ECOSOC affects technical cooperation on trade, infrastructure, and sustainable development. These commissions facilitate regional integration and coordinate development strategies among neighboring countries. The Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia, for instance, addresses reconstruction and development challenges in a region experiencing multiple conflicts and humanitarian crises.
The International Trade Centre, jointly operated with the World Trade Organization, supports developing countries’ integration into the global trading system. Its presence on the withdrawal list may reduce capacity-building assistance to small and medium enterprises in developing economies, potentially affecting trade diversification and economic resilience.
Alternative Paths and Future Scenarios
The UN has emphasized that its work will continue despite the US withdrawal. Secretary-General Guterres, according to his spokesman, “is determined as ever to continue his work and continuing to defend the Charter and continuing to defend this international institution.” The organization is exploring mechanisms to offset funding shortfalls, including increased contributions from other member states, expanded private sector partnerships, and efficiency improvements.
Several countries have indicated willingness to increase their support for affected UN entities. The European Union, China, and other major economies may expand their financial commitments to maintain operational capacity of programs deemed essential to international stability. However, the scale of US contributions means that full replacement would require substantial collective effort.
Civil society organizations are mobilizing to defend multilateral institutions and advocate for sustained funding. Amnesty International characterized the withdrawals as “a vindictive effort to tear apart global cooperation,” calling on other countries to strengthen their commitments to international organizations. Networks of environmental, human rights, and development organizations are working to maintain programmatic continuity through alternative funding sources and partnerships.
The withdrawal also creates opportunities for other countries to assume leadership roles in areas where the US has stepped back. India and France, as co-leaders of the International Solar Alliance, may deepen their engagement to sustain momentum on renewable energy deployment. Regional organizations may expand their mandates to address gaps left by reduced US participation in UN entities.
Conclusion: A Precarious Balance at Risk
The decision to withdraw from 66 international organizations represents a fundamental shift in US engagement with multilateral institutions at a moment of acute global instability. With active conflicts in Ukraine, Gaza, and multiple other regions, climate emergencies intensifying, and democratic institutions under pressure worldwide, the reduction of US support for coordinating mechanisms threatens to weaken international capacity to prevent conflicts, respond to humanitarian crises, and address transnational challenges.
The United Nations’ response—emphasizing legal obligations and determination to continue its mandates—reflects institutional resilience but also highlights the vulnerability of international cooperation to unilateral action by major powers. The organization’s ability to maintain operations depends on other member states fulfilling their commitments and, potentially, expanding their support to compensate for US withdrawal.
For civil society organizations worldwide, the withdrawal creates immediate challenges in funding, coordination, and political support. Organizations working on gender equality, child protection, peacebuilding, democratic governance, and environmental conservation face reduced resources and diminished international backing for their efforts.
The coming months will test whether the international community can maintain effective cooperation in the absence of full US participation, whether alternative leadership arrangements can emerge, and whether the multilateral system created after World War II can adapt to a more fragmented global landscape. What remains clear is that the challenges facing humanity—from climate change to armed conflict to humanitarian emergencies—require coordinated responses that transcend national borders and partisan politics. The withdrawal from 66 organizations makes such coordination more difficult precisely when it is most needed.
Sources
White House. (2026, January 7). Withdrawing the United States from International Organizations, Conventions, and Treaties that Are Contrary to the Interests of the United States. Presidential Memorandum. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2026/01/withdrawing-the-united-states-from-international-organizations-conventions-and-treaties-that-are-contrary-to-the-interests-of-the-united-states/
United Nations. (2026, January 8). Daily Press Briefing by the Office of the Spokesperson for the Secretary-General. https://press.un.org/en/2026/db260108.doc.htm
Al Jazeera. (2026, January 8). Which are the 66 global organisations the US is leaving under Trump? https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/1/8/which-are-the-66-global-organisations-the-us-is-leaving-under-trump
The Press Pad. (2026, January 8). Why Has the US Withdrawn from 66 International Organisations? https://www.thepresspad.com/post/why-has-the-us-withdrawn-from-66-international-organisations
[ad_1]
Microplastics could be fuelling neurodegenerative diseases like Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s, with a new study highlighting five ways microplastics
[ad_2]
Speaking in the Methodist Central Hall, the very venue where the first-ever United Nations General Assembly was held on January 10, 1946, Mr. Guterres called on delegates at the event to be “bold enough to change. Bold enough to find the courage of those who came to this room ago […]
Originally published at Almouwatin.com
“The humanitarian situation and crisis in Gaza is far from being over,” Olga Cherevko from the UN aid coordination office OCHA said on Friday in an update to journalists in Jerusalem.
“For the Palestinians in Gaza, their lives continue to be defined by displacement, trauma, uncertainty, and deprivation.”
This has been further compounded by “severe recurrent storms that not only destroy people’s meagre belongings, but they’re also deadly – whether through crumbling buildings or by taking the lives of children who are highly susceptible to the cold”.
Since the ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, humanitarians have brought in over 165,000 metric tonnes of assistance into Gaza. They also repaired roads, rehabilitated hospitals, cleared rubble, and re-opened aid distribution points.
“We celebrated our gains and showed once again that when we’re enabled to do so, we deliver,” Ms. Cherevko said, adding that “the results speak for themselves.”
During the first two months of the truce alone, over 1.3 million people received food packages, and over 1.5 million hot meals were prepared and delivered to people in need across Gaza, thus improving food security.
When torrential floods hit Gaza, putting thousands of families at risk, humanitarians worked with municipalities to find safer options. They also distributed tents, tarpaulins, mattresses and warm clothes.
“But while this progress is clear, it remains fragile and could be reversed overnight,” she said. “Because airstrikes, shelling, and armed clashes continue with civilian casualties being reported daily. Most of Gaza lies in ruins and the needs far outpace our efforts to meet them.”
Ms. Cherevko said that “due to various impediments and restrictions placed on organizations operating in Gaza and specific types of supplies that could enter, we could basically only apply Band-Aids to a wound that can only be closed with proper care.”
The harsh winter storms have also reversed gains made on the humanitarian front “because no amount of tents or tarpaulins can replace repairing people’s homes”.
Additionally, despite humanitarians re-opening or establishing dozens of health service points, less than 40 per cent of healthcare facilities in Gaza are operational, while educational supplies critical for children who have not gone to school for two consecutive years continue to be barred from entry.
She also pointed to delays at border crossings, limited humanitarian corridors, delays, and other impediments, as well as restrictions on the operations of UN entities and international NGOs which “are putting lives at risk.”
Ms. Cherevko stressed that “emergency response and its transition to early recovery cannot wait for political solutions. And a ceasefire in itself is not a recovery plan.”
What humanitarians working in Gaza need “remains very simple,” she said, calling for parties to the conflict to respect the ceasefire, ensure civilians are protected and that humanitarian access remains predictable, sustained and unimpeded.
Furthermore, restrictions on both aid agencies and critical supplies must be lifted, early recovery must be funded and enabled, and donor support must continue.
“The choices that are made today, both by the parties to the conflict and the donors will shape whether the pause to this fighting will translate to a path to stability or becomes just another quiet before the next storm,” she said.
“The humanitarian situation and crisis in Gaza are far from over,” Olga Cherevko of the UN aid coordination office. OCHA” said in an update to journalists in Jerusalem on Friday. “For Palestinians in Gaza, their lives continue to be defined by displacement, trauma, uncertainty and […]
Originally published at Almouwatin.com
The relationship between Mohammed bin Salman and Mohammed bin Zayed has quietly but decisively entered a new phase marked by real lasting tension rather than tactical disagreement. What is unfolding between Riyadh and Abu Dhabi is no longer a matter of personal style or economic competition alone but a muted confrontation between two visions of regional leadership. This rivalry is fueled by constant comparison, by a widening gap in international recognition, and by a form of strategic jealousy rooted in the fact that the United Arab Emirates have succeeded without noise or spectacle in occupying spaces of influence that Saudi Arabia has long regarded as part of its natural sphere.
For decades the Gulf’s implicit hierarchy appeared stable. Saudi Arabia embodied central power through demography, energy rents and religious authority. The UAE was seen as an efficient, innovative partner useful to regional modernization but structurally secondary. That tacit order began to crack when the Emirates moved beyond the role of commercial hub to become a global strategic actor capable of shaping security, diplomatic, and ideological files far beyond their size. From that point on comparison became uncomfortable for Riyadh.
Mohammed bin Salman’s ascent was defined by acceleration. By rapidly concentrating political security and economic levers he broke with the Kingdom’s traditional collegial governance. This approach delivered immediate control and decisiveness, but it also produced extreme personalization of power and permanent international exposure. Mohammed bin Zayed by contrast built authority over time. His influence emerged through the methodical management of post Arab Spring shocks early neutralization of Islamist movements and the construction of institutions capable of absorbing crises without exposing the apex of the state. This initial divergence created a durable gap in strategic maturity.
Governance styles widened that gap. In Saudi Arabia rapid centralization came with visible coercion mass arrests high profile economic purges and personalized anticorruption campaigns. These measures reinforced immediate authority but weakened internal regulation and entrenched reliance on coercion. In the UAE political control rests more on institutional legal and administrative mechanisms paired with preventive surveillance and discreet balance management. This architecture limits crises compartmentalizes risk and prevents the state from becoming hostage to one man’s decisions.
Human rights have played a decisive role in international perceptions of this divergence. Under Mohammed bin Salman increased use of the death penalty including in political and security related cases mass executions and the imprisonment of activists and dissidents have generated sustained criticism. These practices impose lasting diplomatic costs undermine reform narratives and create structural distrust among Western partners. In the UAE while the system remains authoritarian control is more regulated and less demonstrative. Authorities prioritize prevention administrative neutralization and targeted surveillance without turning capital punishment into a political instrument. This difference reinforces Abu Dhabi’s image as predictable and manageable.
The murder of Jamal Khashoggi marked a point of no return. It crystallized doubts about decision making at the Saudi apex and placed Mohammed bin Salman under constant international scrutiny. Since then Saudi Arabia remains indispensable but every major initiative is filtered through that rupture. Mohammed bin Zayed by enforcing strict discipline in communication delegation and decision making avoided such reputational shocks. In a world where credibility conditions long term partnerships this restraint became a decisive strategic advantage.
Frustration in Riyadh deepened as Vision 2030 sought to reposition Saudi Arabia as the Arab world’s economic cultural and political center while investors diplomats and policymakers continued to see Dubai and Abu Dhabi as more predictable operationally reliable environments. This recognition gap more than material differences fueled growing strategic jealousy. Saudi Arabia takes major political risks and spends heavily yet the Emirates capture disproportionate dividends in image influence and centrality.
Saudi decisions targeting the Emirati model must be read through this lens. Mandating multinational headquarters to relocate to Riyadh is not merely domestic development policy it is an explicit attempt to erode the Emirates’ comparative advantage now viewed as a direct competitor siphoning prestige and flows Riyadh believes should naturally accrue to it. Psychologically this marks a break Abu Dhabi is no longer just an ally but a pole to be contained.
Rivalry now crystallizes across concrete arenas. Economically through competition for regional headquarters financial hubs logistics and capital. Diplomatically in relations with Washington Europe and major Asian powers where the UAE is often perceived as more predictable and disciplined. Ideologically in the fight against political Islam Mohammed bin Zayed has imposed a clear doctrinal and consistent stance against the Muslim Brotherhood across state institutions. Saudi Arabia despite official hostility has adopted a more fluctuating approach accepting tactical alliances when expedient most visibly in Yemen with actors linked to Islah.
Yemen is the clearest revealer. Officially allied Riyadh and Abu Dhabi pursued different objectives. Saudi Arabia prioritized preserving formal state unity and securing its southern border. The UAE focused on controlling strategic points ports maritime routes coastal zones by backing local forces able to guarantee stability particularly in the South. The Southern Transitional Council supported by Abu Dhabi became unavoidable on the ground. For Riyadh the rise of autonomous Emirati backed actors challenged its leadership. Attacks direct or indirect on southern forces can thus be read as political signals as much as military actions meant to reaffirm that final authority cannot bypass Saudi Arabia.
Beyond Yemen the UAE’s global expansion is deeply unsettling for Riyadh. Abu Dhabi now operates politically economically and security wise across the main arteries of strategic globalization ports and logistics in East Africa the Horn the Red Sea and the Mediterranean massive investments in Europe’s energy infrastructure finance and technology sectors defense partnerships and intelligence cooperation with Western and Asian powers and an active humanitarian diplomacy enabling entry into fragile zones where others are rejected. This omnipresence produces a new reality the Emirates are consulted sometimes before Riyadh on files Saudi Arabia considers naturally its own.
This generates profound strategic irritation. From Riyadh’s perspective the UAE enjoys disproportionate influence relative to its size benefiting from regional momentum while avoiding the heaviest political and reputational costs. From Abu Dhabi’s view Saudi activism can appear disorderly risky and destabilizing. This divergence erodes trust and hardens competition.
Today relations remain functional but conditional competitive and under constant watch. Cooperation persists but it is hedged and offset by parallel strategies. Open rupture is unlikely shared interests remain strong but rapid normalization is equally improbable. As long as the UAE continues to expand its global footprint with silent efficiency and Saudi Arabia seeks to reclaim what it views as natural leadership rivalry will remain structural.
What is at stake goes beyond two men. It is a contest over defining regional leadership in the post oil era. Saudi Arabia advances through speed centralization and display the UAE through anticipation networks and cost control. In this mismatch lies the core of today’s tension. And as long as recognition and results diverge the Middle East’s silent recomposition will continue starting at the heart of the Gulf.
Climate-proofing the agriculture, energy and transport sectors would help avoid billions of euros in losses from the accelerating extreme weather events related to climate change. At the same time, it would increase Europe’s competitiveness, according to a briefing published today by the European Environment Agency (EEA).
Source link
[ad_1]
Seventy light-years from Earth, a star called Kappa Tucanae A harbors one of astronomy’s most perplexing mysteries: dust so
[ad_2]