By Alon Ben-Meir
NEW YORK, Feb 5 2025 – In less than two weeks in office, Trump issued scores of reckless executive orders that ironically will gravely undermine rather than enhance his “America First” agenda and America’s global leadership.

Millions of Americans expected Trump to go rogue once he reassumed the presidency, but much fewer expected him to issue scores of reckless and damaging executive orders so swiftly.

Pulling the US out of several United Nations agencies and threatening to take over the Panama Canal and acquire by force, if necessary, Denmark’s autonomous territory Greenland are some of the most outrageous plans that would severely undermine his “America First” agenda instead of serving its best interests globally and domestically.

It is hard to imagine what will happen to America in a year or two if Congressional Republicans don’t wake up and prevent him from pursuing this perilous agenda. They can put America first only by maintaining global involvement, exerting leadership, and having a say at the table instead of relinquishing its role and responsibility to Russia and China, who would happily jump at every opportunity to undermine America’s national interest.

What Trump fails to grasp is that the UN, despite its inflated bureaucracy and the failure of some of its agencies to adapt to changing global circumstances, still plays a critical role in international affairs, where the US has taken the lead and from which the US directly benefited.

Moreover, Trump and his benighted advisors appear oblivious to the importance of the UN as the only international organization that endeavors, among other things, to maintain international peace and security, protect human rights, promote international cooperation, and provide badly needed humanitarian assistance.

Indeed, despite its inadequacies in various areas, the UN remains indispensable. Trump, ‘the fixer,’ should help fix various agencies’ inadequacies, not by defunding their essential work but by taking the lead and working with other countries to make these agencies proficient and effective. This certainly is in the best interest of the US and only complements his America First agenda.

Several UN agencies are targeted for defunding because Trump broadly accuses them of corruption and resource waste. Again, it is inexplicable how these agencies, regardless of their shortcomings, are targeted for defunding when they provide critical services that the global community needs.

The World Health Organization (WHO), founded in 1948, protects global health. Among many of its critically important functions, WHO anticipates and responds to global health emergencies, including worldwide pandemics like COVID-19.

It also works to eliminate contagious diseases, having eradicated smallpox in 1980. Moreover, the organization establishes international health standards and monitors global health trends through research and data collection to steer evidence-based health policy.

How on earth would defunding it serve the notion of America first if the US will have no say in its operation? Diseases don’t stay neatly contained within borders, and leaving the world’s largest collaborative public health body will leave the US the last to know when deadly contagions are spreading.

The UN Human Rights Council is an intergovernmental body responsible for promoting and protecting global human rights. The US withdrew in June 2018 under Trump but announced a re-engagement in 2021 under Biden. The US has had a complicated relationship with this body under various presidents, mainly due to US accusations that the body has been and still is anti-Israel.

In addition, some member states in this agency are committing human rights violations in their own countries, which undermines their credibility as the guardian of human rights. Again, human rights are sacrosanct; any contribution to guarding them is needed.

The US, which has championed human rights, should always be at the forefront and address what’s wrong with this important agency rather than defunding it and letting China and Russia influence its focus and direction.

The United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) is another agency Trump wants to punish. This indispensable agency seeks to bring peace through international cooperation in education, science, and culture and protects the world’s physical and intangible heritage.

Here again, the US withdrew from UNESCO under Trump in 2019, primarily citing the organization’s alleged anti-Israel bias but also because of mounting arrears and the need for fundamental reforms.

The US rejoined in 2023 under Biden because he recognized its importance, which made up for its deficiencies. Trump’s withdrawal from this agency does not serve his America First agenda, especially when the US’ concerns and interests are ignored, and its contribution is no longer sought out.

The UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) provides assistance and protection for registered Palestinian refugees across the Middle East. Trump cut funding in 2018; Biden restored it in 2021, but Congress passed a one-year ban on UNRWA funding until March 25, 2025.

There is no doubt that this nearly eight-decades-old organization is heavy on bureaucracy and short on efficiency, and a small number of its operatives in Gaza were found guilty of aiding Hamas in its attack against Israel. Nevertheless, it still renders essential services, which, at present, are more needed than ever.

Yes, significant reorganization and streamlining of its operation is absolutely necessary, but that cannot be fixed without the US’ direct involvement. By abandoning UNRWA, the US is abdicating its leadership role in finding a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Indeed, many involved in the process have explicitly said that, and if anything, now that the war in Gaza is still raging and the Palestinian refugees are in a dire situation, American leadership is needed more than ever before.

The Paris Agreement, adopted in December 2015, aims to limit global temperature increases to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. Developed countries are asked to provide financial assistance to less developed ones to meet climate goals.

Trump withdrew from the Paris Agreement in his first term and is doing it again. The belief of most Republicans that there is no such thing as climate change, against the overwhelming evidence, is nothing short of a travesty.

But then, leave it to the willfully ignorant to dismiss the unprecedented storms, hurricanes, fires, rising sea levels, and temperature because they refuse to see reality. Sadly, withdrawal from the Paris Agreement is also tied to Trump’s desire to expand US fossil fuel production, which has a significant adverse environmental impact on the US just as much, if not more, than other countries.

Territorial ambition

Not only Democrats but also many of Trump’s supporters are baffled by his arbitrary decision to take another country’s territory by force if he “has to,” such as Greenland and the Panama Canal, which is outrageous to even think about. Is there one single sane Trump advisor who can tell him that what he is thinking is a gross violation of international law, to unilaterally decide to take over any land that belongs to other countries?

In addition, it is terrifying other countries, creating a dreadful feeling about what the United States represents and the harm it can inflict at this point on other states. To suggest that the US can unilaterally take land from a UN member state, or worse yet, in the case of Greenland, a NATO member state is nothing short of folly—to take by force land from one’s allies.

The US is committed to upholding territorial integrity, and to think that Trump can just take over the Panama Canal and invade Denmark’s territory is the highest of absurdity.

Sadly, with the new Trump administration entering a second term, not only does the UN face an exceptionally hostile White House, but even many of the US’ friends and allies are bewildered and greatly concerned about what he might do next. They fear that nothing good will come out of this Trump administration and are bracing for the worst.

Trump must remember that America First is best served when America is respected, not feared.

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

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?’http’:’https’;if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+’://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js’;fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, ‘script’, ‘twitter-wjs’);  

By CIVICUS
Feb 5 2025 –  
CIVICUS discusses the ongoing conflict in Ethiopia’s Amhara region with Hone Mandefro, advocacy director at the Amhara Association of America, and Henok Ashagray, PhD candidate and project officer at the Centre for Human Rights at the University of Pretoria.

Henok Ashagray – Hone Mandefro

Violent clashes continue between Amhara Fano militias and Ethiopian government forces across the Amhara region, with incidents reported in 56 locations. The most affected areas include East Gojjam, North Wollo and South Wollo, with civilian casualties reported in at least 13 locations and airstrikes and drone attacks confirmed in eight. Government forces have conducted widespread arrests and forced conscription campaigns, targeting minors and older people. Meanwhile, in the Oromia region, targeted attacks against Amhara communities have led to deaths, displacement and sexual violence.

What’s the current state of the conflict in Ethiopia’s Amhara region?

The conflict continues to escalate, with widespread violence and heavy clashes across the Amhara region and parts of Oromia. Government forces have intensified their military campaigns and are now using airstrikes and drones , while Fano militias resist fiercely. The fighting is severe and prolonged, with territorial control frequently shifting. While government forces focus on urban areas, Fano militias dominate smaller towns and rural regions, claiming to control over 80 per cent of the Amhara region.

Civilians are bearing the brunt of the violence. Despite limited attention from human rights organisations, sporadic reports have documented alarming abuses, including extrajudicial killings and mass detentions. According to the Amhara Association of America, there were at least 5,052 civilian casualties between August 2023 and December 2024, including 3,935 killed and 1,117 injured by Ethiopian National Defence Forces or allied militias. Drone and airstrikes alone caused 1,076 casualties, including 823 fatalities.

Arbitrary mass arrests and attacks on medical professionals, patients and health facilities are common. The conflict has left over 4.1 million children out of school, with 4,178 schools closed, 300 damaged and 350 rendered non-functional, according to the United Nations (UN) Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. An emerging famine leaves many at risk of starvation unless immediate aid is delivered.

The conflict is also destabilising the Sudan border as civilians try to escape the violence. Refugee flows into Sudan and vice versa are worsening the humanitarian crisis. Cross-border arms smuggling and the movement of fighters further destabilise the region. In September 2024, fighting around the Metemma border forced Ethiopian government forces to retreat into Sudan.

How have relations between Amhara and Oromo communities been affected?

Amhara-Oromo relations have always been tense, and they’ve worsened due to escalating human rights abuses and ethnic cleansing of Amhara people in Oromia since Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed came to power. Systematic violence – including mass killings, physical harm and forced evictions – has deepened mistrust. Groups such as the Oromo Liberation Army and regional forces have been implicated in atrocities that some organisations, including the Amhara Association of America, consider to be genocide.

The federal government has been accused of denial, inaction and even active participation in massacres targeting Amhara people. Forced displacement of millions of Amhara civilians from Oromia, orchestrated by state and non-state forces, has left many living in unsafe conditions in makeshift internally displaced persons camps in Amhara cities. While some Amhara people understand that Oromo people as a whole may not support the regime’s actions, the involvement of some Oromo elites and complicity by state forces have widened the divisions between the two communities. Oromo elites, including those in Addis Ababa and abroad, have supported military campaigns on Amhara to consolidate Oromia’s political dominance, further increasing Amhara mistrust.

Genuine reconciliation will require robust transitional justice and accountability mechanisms to address past and ongoing human rights violations, ensure justice for victims and hold perpetrators responsible for their actions. This would lay the foundation for long-term peace and trust between communities.

What roles is civil society playing in peacebuilding?

Religious institutions, community organisations and local media are struggling to play their proper roles in peacebuilding. While traditional reconciliation mechanisms, such as mediation by respected elders and interethnic dialogues, could potentially help rebuild trust between the communities, the current atmosphere of violence and repression enacted by the regime has made these efforts almost impossible.

Religious leaders, who have historically served as trusted mediators in community disputes, have been sidelined, harassed and imprisoned for their perceived neutrality or dissent. Similarly, local elders who play prominent roles in traditional conflict resolution face intimidation and detention. Many community members now view traditional leaders as co-opted by the government, further eroding trust in their ability to act as peacebuilders.

Community organisations essential for amplifying voices advocating for reconciliation have been systematically weakened. Human rights groups and civic organisations face suspensions, disbandment or severe restrictions as part of an ongoing governmental crackdown on civil society.

Independent media could play a critical role in promoting dialogue and holding perpetrators accountable but have been stifled through censorship and threats, with many journalists ending up behind bars. According to the Committee to Protect Journalists, Ethiopia is one of Africa’s worst jailers of journalists.

Without the contributions of religious institutions, community organisations and local media, the push for accountability and sustainable peace becomes far more challenging. Strengthening and protecting civil society is essential for meaningful reconciliation to happen.

How are international bodies responding to the crisis?

Regional bodies and the UN have largely stayed silent on the Amhara conflict, drawing criticism for their inaction. The African Union has been quiet even as Amhara people are detained near its offices in Addis Ababa. The UN has offered limited acknowledgment of the violence, forced displacements and famine in the region. The recent election of Ethiopia as a member of the UN Human Rights Council for the 2025-2027 term has further dismayed victims of ongoing atrocities.

Lack of accountability for war crimes, including attacks on civilians and destruction of infrastructure, has eroded trust in international institutions. Regional and international bodies must adopt a proactive approach, pressing the regime to end atrocities and facilitate humanitarian aid. Independent investigations by organisations such as the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights and the UN Human Rights Council could help ensure accountability. Increased humanitarian assistance must prioritise vulnerable groups and address the root causes of the conflict.

GET IN TOUCH
Website
Twitter
Facebook

SEE ALSO
Ethiopia: ‘The international community must stop enabling the war on Ethiopia’s Amhara people’ CIVICUS Lens | Interview with Robel Alemu 04.Oct.2024
Ethiopia: hostile conditions for critics, human rights defenders and journalists CIVICUS Monitor 31.Aug.2024
Horn of Africa: ‘De-escalation must be the primary objective’ CIVICUS Lens | Interview with Mengistu Assefa 23.Feb.2024

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?’http’:’https’;if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+’://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js’;fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, ‘script’, ‘twitter-wjs’);  

By External Source
Feb 5 2025 – Americans consume more illicit drugs per capita than anyone else in the world; about 6% of the U.S. population uses them regularly.
One such drug, fentanyl – a synthetic opioid that’s 50 to 100 times more potent than morphine – is the leading reason U.S. overdose deaths have surged in recent years. While the rate of fentanyl overdose deaths has dipped a bit recently, it’s still vastly higher than it was just five years ago.

Ending the fentanyl crisis won’t be easy. The U.S. has an addiction problem that spans decades – long predating the rise of fentanyl – and countless attempts to regulate, legislate and incarcerate have done little to reduce drug consumption. Meanwhile, the opioid crisis alone costs Americans tens of billions of dollars each year.

With past policies having failed to curb fentanyl deaths, President Donald Trump is turning to another tool to fight America’s drug problem: trade policy.

During his presidential campaign, Trump pledged to impose tariffs on Canada and Mexico if they didn’t halt the flow of drugs across U.S. borders, and on China if it didn’t do more to crack down on the production of chemicals used to make fentanyl. Trump reiterated his plan on his first day back in office, and on Feb. 1, he made good on that threat, imposing tariffs on all three counties and citing fentanyl as a key reason.

Speaking as a professor who studies social policy, I think both fentanyl and the proposed import taxes represent significant threats to the U.S. While the human toll of fentanyl is undeniable, the real question is whether tariffs will work – or worsen what’s already a crisis.

Fentanyl: The ‘single greatest challenge’

In 2021, more than 107,000 Americans died from overdoses – the most ever recorded – and nearly seven out of 10 deaths involved fentanyl or similar synthetic opioids. In 2022, fentanyl was killing an average of 200 people each day. And while fentanyl deaths declined slightly in 2023, nearly 75,000 Americans still died from synthetic opioids that year. In March of that year – the most recent for which full-year data on overdose deaths is available – the then-secretary of homeland security declared fentanyl to be “the single greatest challenge we face as a country.”

But history shows that government efforts to curb drug use often have little success.

The first real attempt to regulate drugs in the U.S. occurred in 1890, when, amid rampant drug abuse, Congress enacted a law taxing morphine and opium. In the years that followed, cocaine use skyrocketed, rising 700% between 1890 and 1902. Cocaine was so popular, it was even found in drinks such as Coca-Cola, from which it got its name.

This was followed by a 1909 act banning the smoking of opium, and, in 1937, the “Marihuana Tax Act.” The most comprehensive package of laws was instituted with the Controlled Substances Act of 1970, which classified drugs into five categories based on their medical uses and potential for abuse or dependence. A year later, then-President Richard Nixon launched the “War on Drugs” and declared drug abuse as “public enemy No. 1.” And in 1986, Congress passed the Anti-Drug Abuse Act, directing US$1.7 billion for drug enforcement and control.

These policies have generally failed to curb drug supply and use, while also causing significant harm to people and communities of color. For example, between 1980 and 1997, the number of incarcerations for nonviolent drug offenses went from 50,000 to 400,000. But these policies hardly put a dent in consumption. The share of high school seniors using drugs dipped only slightly over the same period, from 65% in 1980 to 58% in 1997.

In short, past U.S. efforts to reduce illegal drug use haven’t been especially effective. Now, it looks like the U.S. is shifting toward using tariffs – but research suggests that those will not lead to better outcomes either, and could actually cause considerable harm.

Why tariffs won’t work

America’s experiments with tariffs can be traced back to the founding era with the passage of the Tariff Act of 1789. This long history has shown that tariffs, industrial subsidies and protectionist policies don’t do much to stimulate broad economic growth at home – but they raise prices for consumers and can even lead to global economic instability. History also shows that tariffs don’t work especially well as negotiating tools, failing to effect significant policy changes in target countries. Economists generally agree that the costs of tariffs outweigh the benefits.

Over the course of Trump’s first term, the average effective tariff rate on Chinese imports went from 3% to 11%. But while imports from China fell slightly, the overall trade relationship didn’t change much: China remains the second-largest supplier of goods to the U.S.

The tariffs did have some benefit – for Vietnam and other nearby countries with relatively low labor costs. Essentially, the tariffs on China caused production to shift, with global companies investing billions of dollars in competitor nations.

This isn’t the first time Trump has used trade policy to pressure China on fentanyl – he did so in his first term. But while China made some policy changes in response, such as adding fentanyl to its controlled substances list in 2019, fentanyl deaths in the U.S. continued to rise. Currently, China still ranks as the No. 1 producer of fentanyl precursors, or chemicals used to produce illicit fentanyl. And there are others in the business: India, over that same period, has become a major producer of fentanyl.

A question of supply and demand

Drugs have been pervasive throughout U.S. history. And when you investigate this history and look at how other nations are dealing with this problem rather than criminalization, the Swiss and French have approached it as an addiction problem that could be treated. They realized that demand is what fuels the illicit market. And as any economist will tell you, supply will find a way if you don’t limit the demand. That’s why treatment works and bans don’t.

The U.S. government’s ability to control the production of these drugs is limited at best. The problem is that new chemical products will continually be produced. Essentially, failure to restrict demand only places bandages on hemorrhaging wounds. What the U.S. needs is a more systematic approach to deal with the demand that’s fueling the drug crisis.

This article was updated to include details of the tariffs once they were imposed.

Rodney Coates, Professor of Critical Race and Ethnic Studies, Miami University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.