by Lawrence Wittner | Aug 26, 2025 | United Nations
If one examines Donald Trump’s approach to world affairs since his entry into American politics, it should come as no surprise that he has worked to undermine the United Nations.
The United Nations is based on international cooperation, as well as on what the UN Charter calls “the equal rights…of nations large and small.” It seeks to end “the scourge of war” and to “promote social progress” for the people of the world.
By contrast, Trump has advocated an aggressively nationalist path for the United States. Campaigning for the presidency in 2016, he proclaimed that “America First” would “be the major and overriding theme of my administration.” In his 2017 inaugural address, he promised: “From this day forward, it’s going to be only America first.”
Indeed, “America First” became his rallying cry as he championed an aggressive nationalism. “You know what I am?” Trump asked a crowd in Houston. “I’m a nationalist, O.K.? I’m a nationalist. Nationalist!” Sometimes, his displays of superpatriotism―which appealed strongly to rightwing audiences―included hugging and kissing the American flag.
Given this aggressively nationalist orientation, Trump turned during his first administration to dismantling key institutions of the United Nations and of the broader system of international law. He withdrew the U.S. government from the Paris Climate Agreement, the World Health Organization, the UN Human Rights Council, and the UN Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). He also had the U.S. government vote against the Global Compact on Refugees, suspend funding for the UN Population Fund and the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees, and impose sanctions on a key international agency, the International Criminal Court, which investigates and prosecutes perpetrators of genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and the crime of aggression.
Nevertheless, many of these Trump measures were reversed under the subsequent presidency of Joseph Biden, which saw the U.S. government rejoin and bolster most of the international organizations attacked by his predecessor.
With Trump’s 2020 election to a second term, however, the U.S. government’s aggressively nationalist onslaught resumed. In January 2025, U.S. Representative Elise Stefanik (R-NY), testifying at a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on her nomination to become U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, assailed the world organization, and promised to use her new post to promote Trump’s “America First” agenda. “Our tax dollars,” she argued, “should not be complicit in propping up entities that are counter to American interests.” Joining the attack, Senator Jim Risch (R-Idaho), the committee chair, sharply criticized the United Nations and called for a reevaluation of every UN agency to determine if its actions benefited the United States. If they didn’t, he said, “hold them accountable until the answer is a resounding yes.” He added that “the U.S. should seriously examine if further contributions and, indeed, participation in the UN is even beneficial to the American people.”
Simultaneously, a new Trump administration steamroller began advancing upon UN entities and other international institutions viewed as out of line with his “America First” priorities. At his direction, the U.S. government withdrew from the World Health Organization and the UN Human Rights Council, refused to participate in the UN Relief and Works Agency, announced plans to withdraw from UNESCO, and imposed new sanctions on the International Criminal Court. In the UN Security Council, the U.S. government employed its veto power to block a June 2025 resolution demanding a permanent ceasefire in Gaza and release of all hostages―a measure supported by the 14 other members of that UN entity.
The Trump administration has also worked to cripple the United Nations by reducing its very meager income. In July 2025, rescissions legislation sponsored by the administration and passed by the Republican-controlled Congress pulled back some $1 billion in funding that U.S. legislation had allocated to the world organization in previous budgets. This action will have devastating effects on a broad variety of UN programs, including UNICEF, the UN Development Program, the UN Environment Program, the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, and the UN Fund for Victims of Torture.
Moreover, the administration’s fiscal 2026 budget proposes ending UN Peacekeeping payments and pausing most other contributions to the United Nations. Although U.S. funding of the United Nations is actually quite minimal―for example, dues of only $820 million per year for the regular UN budget―the U.S. government has now compiled a debt of $1.5 billion (the highest debt of any nation) to the regular budget and another $1.3 billion to the separate UN Peacekeeping budget.
The Trump administration’s hostility to the United Nations is sharply at odds with the American public’s attitude toward the world organization. For example, a Pew Research Center poll in late March 2025 found that 63 percent of U.S. respondents said that their country benefited from UN membership―up 3 percent from the previous spring. And 57 percent of Americans polled had a favorable view of the United Nations―up 5 percent since 2024.
Furthermore, a University of Maryland public opinion survey in June 2025 found that 84 percent of Americans it polled wanted the U.S. government to work with the United Nations at current levels or more. This included 83 percent supporting UNICEF, 81 percent UN Peacekeeping, 81 percent the UN World Food Program, 79 percent the World Health Organization, and 73 percent the UN Environment Program.
Nor was this strong backing for a global approach to global affairs a fluke. Even when it came to the International Criminal Court, an independent international entity that the U.S. government had never joined and that Trump had roundly denounced and twice ordered sanctioned, 62 percent of Americans surveyed expressed their approval of the organization.
Trump’s “America First” approach can certainly stir up his hardcore followers. But most Americans recognize that life in the modern world requires moving beyond a narrow nationalism.
by Hannah Fields | Aug 24, 2025 | Global Justice, Human Rights
From online news reports to social media platforms, the rise of authoritarianism and the surge in catastrophic armed conflicts are being broadcast in real time. The world has witnessed numerous atrocity crimes, causing many observers to speak out against the violence, but with no clear end in sight.
Sudan is experiencing one of the worst humanitarian disasters to date, with its two-year civil war resulting in more than 150,000 deaths and displacing at least 12 million people from their homes. In addition, the crisis has led to famine, mass starvation, and war crimes, including ethnic cleansing and sexual violence, all of which have received lukewarm condemnation and international neglect.
Similar circumstances prevail in Gaza as the Israeli government continues its crimes against humanity in the region. According to the Human Rights Watch World Report 2025, Israeli authorities have intentionally deprived Palestinians of access to humanitarian aid, including food and water essential for survival. They have also wounded and killed thousands of civilians, destroyed vital infrastructure such as homes and hospitals, decimated schools and camps housing displaced families, and left few or no safe spaces for those caught in their crosshairs.
More atrocities can be found in Ukraine, Haiti, Afghanistan, Myanmar, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and beyond. These atrocities range from war crimes to gendered violence to civilians suffering under the oppressive hand of authoritarian regimes.
As these violations mount, the international community is being called upon to demonstrate its commitment to democracy, human rights, and humanitarian action. Many nations, however, have failed to rise to the occasion or have sidestepped those commitments completely.
Even in the case of global governance institutions, such as the United Nations Security Council and the International Criminal Court (ICC), formally established to safeguard human rights and prevent atrocity crimes, their effectiveness is often undermined by structural and political limitations.
The Security Council is frequently paralyzed in its efficacy due to the veto power of its five permanent members (China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States), leading to inaction or slowed response to atrocity crimes. Additionally, the ICC has come under intense scrutiny, with some nations accusing the court of targeting weaker states while powerful actors escape its purview. Other nations have sanctioned the ICC for taking action against the powerful or have refused to comply with its arrest warrants.
With both institutions falling short and coming under the attack of politically motivated aggression from countries like the United States and Russia, some practitioners fear that international law is beginning to erode at its edges. For example, in June 2025, former Pakistani law minister Ahmad Irfan Aslam lamented the diminishing capacity of these institutions to deliver real-world justice, cautioning that “[n]o matter what court you approach, you are not going to get justice,” in part due to politicized state behavior.
With mounting global human rights violations and a waning faith in established global governance institutions, there remains a universal feeling of “what next?” or “where do we go from here?” Some may see no path forward.
But there is still hope to be found, especially in civil society organizations, which serve as important counterweights to the gridlocked state-driven systems.
Civil society organizations can act quickly where institutions cannot and can serve multiple roles, such as first responders, watchdogs, pressure builders, and innovators, among others. These organizations have been stepping up to fill gaps where formal aid pipelines are broken, most notably in areas such as Gaza and Sudan.
Sudanese civil society organizations, along with everyday citizens, have established Emergency Response Rooms (ERRs) — grassroots networks that provide shelter, food distribution, education, and medical aid. To date, these networks have assisted over 11.5 million people and earned a nomination for the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize.
In Gaza, local groups, international NGOs, and independent journalists are collaborating to document abuses, distribute aid when possible (although often with limited success), and mobilize global solidarity. Organizations such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have also closely monitored the situation, publicly documenting statistics and personal testimonies of civilians, thereby raising broader awareness (and have kept that same awareness and documentation for Sudan).
In these situations, we see communities and civil society, not bureaucracies with billion-dollar budgets, fighting to save lives while countering attempts to normalize or erase suffering, whether in courts, newspapers, or public spaces.
However, activity by civil society organizations faces significant obstacles. Shrinking civic space, repressive laws, accusations of bias, and dependency on donor funding can undermine their autonomy and impact. According to the CIVICUS Monitor, 118 countries now restrict freedoms of association, assembly, or expression. In addition, activists are often harassed, jailed, or even killed, as documented in the Front Line Defenders Report 2024/2025.
Even so, civil society stands as a beacon of hope against the dysfunctional nature of institutional systems. Although civil society organizations can’t replace these systems completely, they can act as a beating heart to improve the overall circulation of these systems.
Institutions must be placed in a position where they work alongside, rather than above, civil society actors. Funding structures must shift to empower local organizations directly, reducing the crippling dependency on donor-state priorities. And civil society must have formalized roles in peace processes and accountability mechanisms. In short, it needs to be involved in institutional conversations, not left on the outside.
As human rights violations and atrocity crimes continue to unfold in full public view, the question is not whether civil society can fill the void being left by deficient institutions. The question is whether the global community will acknowledge, support, and integrate civil society actors into a truly multi-layered system of protection.
If institutions cannot act and civil society is stifled, then a future where human rights can take root at a global level is no more than a fleeting notion planted in the sand.
by Lawrence Wittner | Aug 6, 2025 | Disarmament
Ever since the atomic bombings of Japanese cities in August 1945, the world has been living on borrowed time.
The indications, then and since, that the development of nuclear weapons did not bode well for human survival, were clear enough. The two small atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed between 110,000 and 210,000 people and wounded many others, almost all of them civilians. In subsequent years, hundreds of thousands more people around the world lost their lives thanks to the radioactive fallout from nuclear weapons testing, while substantial numbers also died from the mining of uranium for the building of nuclear weapons.
Most startlingly, the construction of nuclear weapons armadas against the backdrop of thousands of years of international conflict portended human extinction. Amid the escalating nuclear terror, Einstein declared: “General annihilation beckons.”
Despite the enormity of the nuclear danger, major governments, in the decades after 1945, were too committed to traditional thinking about international relations to resist the temptation to build nuclear weapons to safeguard what they considered their national security. Whatever the dangers, they concluded, military power still counted in an anarchic world. Consequently, they plunged into a nuclear arms race and, on occasion, threatened one another with nuclear war. At times, they came perilously close to it―not only during the 1963 Cuban missile crisis, but during the October 1973 Arab-Israeli war and on numerous other occasions.
By contrast, much of the public found nuclear weapons and the prospect of nuclear war very unappealing. Appalled by the nuclear menace, they rallied behind organizations like the National Committee for a Sane Nuclear Policy in the United States, the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament in Britain, and comparable groups elsewhere that pressed for nuclear arms control and disarmament measures. This popular uprising secured its first clear triumph when, in the fall of 1958, the governments of the United States, the Soviet Union, and Britain agreed to halt nuclear weapons testing as they negotiated a test ban treaty. As the movement crested, it played an important role in securing the Partial Test Ban Treaty of 1963 and a cascade of nuclear arms control measures that followed.
Even when U.S. and Soviet officials revived the nuclear arms race in the late 1970s and early 1980s, a massive public uprising halted and reversed the situation, leading to the advent of major nuclear disarmament measures. As a result, the number of nuclear weapons in the world’s arsenals plummeted from about 70,000 to about 12,240 between 1986 and 2025. At a special meeting of the UN Security Council in 2009, the leaders of the major nuclear powers called for the building of a nuclear weapons-free world.
In recent decades, however, the dwindling of the popular movement and the heightening of international conflict have led to a revival of the nuclear arms race, now well underway. As three nuclear experts from the Federation of American Scientists reported this June: “Every nuclear country is improving its weapons systems, while some are growing their arsenals. Others are doing both.” The new nuclear weaponry currently being tested includes “cruise missiles that can fly for days before hitting their targets; underwater unmanned nuclear torpedoes; fast-flying maneuverable glide vehicles that can evade defenses; and nuclear weapons in space that can attack satellites or targets on Earth without warning.” The financial costs of the nuclear buildup by the nine nuclear powers (the United States, Russia, China, Britain, France, Israel, India, Pakistan, and North Korea) will be immense. The U.S. government will reportedly spend over $1.7 trillion on its nuclear “modernization.”
To facilitate these nuclear war preparations, the major nuclear powers have withdrawn from key nuclear arms control and disarmament treaties. The New START Treaty, the last of the major U.S.-Russian nuclear agreements, terminates in February 2026.
Furthermore, over the past decade, the governments of North Korea, the United States, and Russia have issued public threats of nuclear war. In line with its threats, the Russian government announced in late 2024 that it had lowered its threshold for using nuclear weapons.
In response to these developments, the Doomsday Clock of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists has been set at 89 seconds to midnight, the most dangerous level in its 79-year history.
As the record of the years since 1945 indicates, the catastrophe of nuclear war can be averted. To accomplish this, however, a revival of public pressure for nuclear disarmament is essential, for otherwise governments easily slip into the traditional trap of enhancing military “strength” to cope with a conflict-ridden world―a practice that, in the nuclear age, is a recipe for disaster.
This public pressure could begin, as the Nuclear Freeze movement of the 1980s did, with a call to halt the nuclear arms race, and could continue with the demand for specific nuclear arms control and disarmament measures.
But, simultaneously, the movement needs to champion the strengthening of global institutions―institutions that can provide greater international security than presently exists. The existence of these strengthened institutions―for example, a stronger United Nations―would help resolve the violent conflicts among nations that spawn arms races and would undermine lingering public and official beliefs that nuclear weapons are essential to safeguard national security.
Once the world is back on track toward nuclear disarmament, the movement could focus on its campaign for the signing and ratification of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. This treaty, providing the framework for a nuclear weapons-free world, was adopted in 2017 by most of the world’s nations and went into force in 2021. Thus far, it has been signed by 94 nations and ratified by 73 of them.
Given recent international circumstances, none of the nuclear powers has signed it. But with widespread popular pressure and enhanced international security, they could ultimately be brought on board.
They certainly should be, for human survival depends upon ending the nuclear terror.
by CGS | Aug 3, 2025 | Past Event
About the Book
The Humble Cosmopolitan explores how an “institutional global citizenship” approach to cosmopolitanism could promote political humility globally. It draws on the work of Indian constitutional architect and social activist B.R. Ambedkar to challenge the notion that sovereign states are empowered to dismiss rights-based challenges from outsiders or their own populations—even as they serve as the designated guarantors of human rights.
About the Author
Luis Cabrera is Associate Professor in the School of Government and International Relations and Griffith Asia Institute at Griffith University in Brisbane, Australia. He has published widely on issues of global justice and ethics, including global citizenship, migration and individual rights, and on the development of more democratically accountable regional and global political institutions. He has conducted related field research in India, Mexico, Southeast Asia, several European Union countries, Turkey, and the United States.
by Lawrence Wittner | Jul 28, 2025 | Global Cooperation
At a time when international cooperation provides the key to preventing a variety of global calamities―including nuclear war, climate catastrophe, and massive starvation―it’s tragic that major nations, ruled by nationalist, rightwing parties, are on a collision course with the organizations that represent the international community.
Chief among these international organizations is the United Nations, with a Charter that bans “the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.” Nevertheless, ignoring this ban, the Russian government has engaged since February 2022 in a massive military invasion and occupation of Ukraine, the Israeli government has continued a brutal occupation and military bombardment of Gaza, and the President of the United States has ordered the bombing of Iran and talked glibly of seizing Gaza, Greenland, and the Panama Canal.
These same nations have refused to comply with or stymied the mandates of numerous key international organizations.
The Russian government has refused to abide by the February 2022 ruling of the International Court of Justice that Russia cease its military invasion of Ukraine immediately, has defied repeated votes by the UN General Assembly condemning its invasion, occupation, and annexation of Ukraine, and has rejected compliance with an International Criminal Court arrest warrant for Russian President Vladimir Putin for his regime’s kidnapping of Ukrainian children. In the UN Security Council, Russia used its veto to frustrate international denunciation of its war on Ukraine and condemnation of Russian annexation of Ukrainian territory.
The Israeli government has spurned vast numbers of UN General Assembly resolutions calling for fair treatment of Palestinians and an end to Israeli occupation of their land or to honor the International Criminal Court’s arrest warrant for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for war crimes against humanity in Gaza.
For its part, the U.S. government, under the new administration of Donald Trump, belittled the United Nations, pulled the United States out of the World Health Organization, abandoned the UN Human Rights Council, suspended U.S. payment for the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees, and announced a review of its membership in the UN Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization. It also employed its veto to block passage of a UN Security Council resolution demanding a permanent ceasefire in Gaza.
The fervent resistance of these governments to international authority is illustrated by their vehement responses to the work of the International Criminal Court (ICC), a global juridical entity endorsed by 125 nations. In Russia, the government opened criminal cases against the prosecutor and judges of the court, while former President Dmitry Medvedev publicly threatened to target the court with missile strikes. In Israel, Prime Minister Netanyahu fiercely denounced the ICC warrant for his arrest as an “antisemitic act” by a corrupt prosecutor and biased judges. In the United States, President Trump issued an executive order in early February 2025 imposing economic and travel sanctions against the ICC prosecutor, establishing a framework for imposing additional sanctions on ICC officials, and directing the U.S. officials to submit the names of other individuals to be targeted.
Indeed, the Trump administration has launched an all-out attack on the work of international institutions, especially the United Nations. In February, Trump ordered a six-month review of U.S. membership in all international organizations, conventions, and treaties with a view toward reducing funding, ending funding, or simply withdrawing from them. This review included a critical examination of the United Nations, with the result that the administration’s 2026 budget proposal reduced UN funding by 87 percent. This draconic UN budget cut will drastically undermine the World Food Program, assistance to children (e.g. UNICEF), refugee, migration, disaster relief, family planning, and economic development programs, the International Court of Justice, the International Atomic Energy Agency, and UN peacekeeping missions, with disastrous consequences. Global starvation, for example, is now widespread, with acute hunger confronting 343 million people in 74 nations.
Meanwhile, in Congress, Republican legislators have introduced bills in the Senate and the House to terminate U.S. membership in the United Nations and affiliated institutions. Representative Chip Roy of Texas, a MAGA stalwart, declared that it was time to dissociate the United States from “this corrupt globalist organization.”
Despite these attacks and a retreat from international responsibility by other nations, it remains possible that international organizations can weather the rightwing, nationalist storm. At the United Nations, Secretary-General António Guterres has been working to modernize and streamline the UN system’s structure, priorities, and operations to meet the new challenges it faces. Nevertheless, given the need to reduce the UN core budget by 20 percent, his new UN80 reform plan does call for thousands of job cuts.
A more promising solution to the problems created by nationalist ideologues in major nations is for other nations to pick up the slack in supporting international institutions. The European Union (EU) is particularly well positioned to assume this role, for it generally favors multilateral action to address global challenges. And it also possesses substantial financial resources. Together with Britain and some potential non-Western partners, such as Japan and South Korea, the EU could substitute for the United States in bolstering the United Nations and other organizations that now provide the rudiments of cooperative global governance.
In addition, it’s certainly possible that, given the inability of governments with a narrow nationalist approach to effectively address contemporary global problems, they will sooner or later be replaced by governments better able to cope with the modern world.
Of course, the League of Nations and the hope of international cooperation were destroyed in the 1930s thanks to the rise of rightwing, hyper-nationalist regimes, and a comparable process might be unfolding today.
Even so, with the onset of World War II, most people finally realized that narrow nationalism had to give way to global cooperation. Let’s hope that it won’t take another world war or comparable catastrophe to convince people again.
by Citizens for Global Solutions | Jul 23, 2025 | Past Event
About the Book
The Humble Cosmopolitan explores how an “institutional global citizenship” approach to cosmopolitanism could promote political humility globally. It draws on the work of Indian constitutional architect and social activist B.R. Ambedkar to challenge the notion that sovereign states are empowered to dismiss rights-based challenges from outsiders or their own populations—even as they serve as the designated guarantors of human rights.
About the Author
Luis Cabrera is Associate Professor in the School of Government and International Relations and Griffith Asia Institute at Griffith University in Brisbane, Australia. He has published widely on issues of global justice and ethics, including global citizenship, migration and individual rights, and on the development of more democratically accountable regional and global political institutions. He has conducted related field research in India, Mexico, Southeast Asia, several European Union countries, Turkey, and the United States.
by Allen Pietrobon | Jul 9, 2025 | Global Cooperation
In the aftermath of the U.S. government’s military strikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities, it is easy to assume that Iran and the United States will never come to diplomatic terms over Iran’s nuclear future. President Donald Trump reportedly decided to launch the strikes partly because he had become increasingly frustrated with Iran for not responding to the latest proposal for a nuclear deal.
Iran, for its part, claimed that it would never abandon its right to enrich uranium for domestic purposes. But at least they were still talking. Now, in response to the American military attacks, Iran’s top diplomat has said that the United States had “decided to blow up diplomacy,” and the next scheduled round of nuclear talks was canceled.
The prospect of Iran developing a nuclear weapon is a grave danger that, like other nuclear perils, needs to be taken seriously. But history has shown that even in moments of maximum danger, when the world seems perched on the edge of a wider war, diplomatic solutions are possible.
The parallels to another historical moment are telling. Before the Cuban Missile Crisis in October 1962, the U.S. government had been negotiating with the Soviet government for over six years to get a nuclear test ban treaty signed that would put major constraints on the testing and development of nuclear weapons.
When the Missile Crisis began, Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev called U.S. President John F. Kennedy’s announcement of a naval blockade (technically, an act of war) “outright banditry . . . the folly of degenerate imperialism.” He declared that “the Soviet Union cannot fail to reject the arbitrary demands of the United States.”
Similarly, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has called the attacks on Iran “barbarous” and claimed that the U.S. government had acted in such a way as to make further nuclear talks “meaningless.”
And yet, back in 1962, the U.S. and Soviet Union, despite being just one mistake or miscalculation away from blundering into a global nuclear war, managed to work together to negotiate a diplomatic end to the crisis. Indeed, the year between the Cuban Missile Crisis in October 1962 and the ratification of the Limited Nuclear Test Ban Treaty in October 1963 witnessed one of the most unexpected reversals in international conflict during the entire Cold War.
The first overture came on December 19, 1962, when Khrushchev, breaking with years of hardline diplomacy, dispatched a letter to Kennedy offering to move forward with a treaty to ban the testing of nuclear weapons. It was the first direct contact between the two leaders in nearly two months.
Hoping to capitalize on this positive diplomatic opening, Kennedy chose an unorthodox route. Instead of turning to his professional diplomats, bound by protocol and official talking points, he chose to dispatch a private citizen, the prominent journalist Norman Cousins, editor of the Saturday Review, to personally meet with Khrushchev and help clear up the remaining obstacles to a settlement.
During this meeting, Khrushchev explained to Cousins that he was encountering fierce opposition from within his own government in his pursuit of the test ban and that what he needed from Kennedy was a sign that the U.S. government was serious about negotiating in good faith.
Back in the United States, Cousins convinced Kennedy that the moment was at hand for the most important single speech of his presidency — a speech in which, after years of tension, he should take the leap to extend an olive branch to the Soviets.
This speech, delivered on June 10, 1963, at the American University commencement, asked Americans to re-examine their negative attitudes towards the Soviet Union and toward peace in general. “Too many of us think [peace] is impossible,” Kennedy said. “But that is a dangerous, defeatist belief. It leads to the conclusion that war is inevitable.”
He urged Americans to “focus instead on a more practical, more attainable peace,” rather than on a “grand or magic formula to be adopted by one or two powers.” He asked the American people “not to see only a distorted and desperate view of the other side, not to see conflict as inevitable, accommodation as impossible, and communication as nothing more than an exchange of threats.”
Although this American University address is now regarded as one of Kennedy’s most famous speeches, at the time his critics attacked this peaceful diplomatic overture to the Soviet Union as “a soft line that will accomplish nothing” and “a dreadful mistake.” Kennedy could have bowed to the pressure of these critics, but instead he chose to break from the aggressive and intransigent rhetoric of the past and redefine the debate.
The speech provided the show of good faith that Khrushchev was waiting for. As a result, despite years of political deadlock, a treaty to ban the atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons was signed between the two nations less than two months later.
Today, we find ourselves at a similar impasse, opening the door to a wider military confrontation. Military strikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities have done nothing more than buy some time. The question is, what do we do with that time? If unilateral military attacks are going to erupt every time a government leader thinks an unfriendly country is developing nuclear weapons, we are entering a very dangerous future, indeed.
Fortunately, history has shown us that, in a moment defined by the overwhelming tensions that nuclear weapons create, sometimes the most powerful weapon of all is the strength of international dialogue and agreement.
by Lawrence Wittner | May 22, 2025 | Disarmament
Although the statement that “power grows out of the barrel of a gun” was made by Chinese communist leader Mao Zedong, it’s an idea that, in one form or another, has motivated a great many people, from the members of teenage street gangs to the statesmen of major nations.
The rising spiral of world military spending provides a striking example of how highly national governments value armed forces. In 2024, the nations of the world spent a record $2.72 trillion on expanding their vast military strength, an increase of 9.4 percent from the previous year. It was the tenth year of consecutive spending increases and the steepest annual rise in military expenditures since the end of the Cold War.
This enormous investment in military might is hardly a new phenomenon. Over the broad sweep of human history, nations have armed themselves―often at great cost―in preparation for war. And an endless stream of wars has followed, resulting in the deaths of perhaps a billion people, most of them civilians. During the 20th century alone, war’s human death toll numbered 231 million.
Even larger numbers of people have been injured in these wars, including many who have been crippled, blinded, hideously burned, or driven mad. In fact, the number of people who have been wounded in war is at least twice the number killed and has sometimes soared to 13 times that number.
War has produced other calamities, as well. The Russian military invasion of Ukraine, for example, has led to the displacement of a third of that nation’s population. In addition, war has caused immense material damage. Entire cities and, sometimes, nations have been reduced to rubble, while even victorious countries sometimes found themselves bankrupted by war’s immense financial costs. Often, wars have brought long-lasting environmental damage, leading to birth defects and other severe health consequences, as the people of Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Vietnam, and the Middle East can attest.
Even when national military forces were not engaged in waging foreign wars, they often produced very undesirable results. The annals of history are filled with incidents of military officers who have used their armies to stage coups and establish brutal dictatorships in their own countries. Furthermore, the possession of military might has often emboldened national leaders to intimidate weaker nations or to embark upon imperial conquest. It’s no accident that nations with the most powerful military forces (“the great powers”) are particularly prone to war-making.
Moreover, prioritizing the military has deprived other sectors of society of substantial resources. Money that could have gone into programs for education, healthcare, food stamps, and other social programs has been channeled instead into unprecedented levels of spending to enhance military might.
It’s a sorry record for what passes as world civilization―one that will surely grow far worse, or perhaps terminate human existence, with the onset of a nuclear war.
Of course, advocates of military power argue that, in a dangerous world, there is a necessity for deterring a military attack upon their nations. And that is surely a valid concern.
But does military might really meet the need for national security? In addition to the problems spawned by massive military forces, it’s not clear that these forces are doing a good job of deterring foreign attack. After all, every year government officials say that their countries are facing greater danger than ever before. And they are right about this. The world is becoming a more dangerous place. A major reason is that the military might sought by one nation for its national security is regarded by other nations as endangering their national security. The result is an arms race and, frequently, war.
Fortunately, though, there are alternatives to the endless process of military buildups and wars.
The most promising among them is the establishment of international security. This could be accomplished through the development of international treaties and the strengthening of international institutions.
Treaties, of course, can establish rules for international behavior by nations while, at the same time, resolving key problems among them (for example, the location of national boundaries) and setting policies that are of benefit to all (for example, reducing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere). Through arms control and disarmament agreements they can also address military dangers. For example, in place of the arms race, they could sponsor a peace race, in which each nation would reduce its military spending by 10 per cent per year. Or nations could sign and ratify (as many have already done) the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, which would end the menace of nuclear annihilation.
International institutions can also play a significant role in reducing international conflict and, thus, the resort to military action. The United Nations, established in 1945, is tasked with maintaining international peace and security, while the International Court of Justice was established to settle legal disputes among nations and the International Criminal Court to investigate and, where justified, try individuals for genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and the crime of aggression.
Unfortunately, these international organizations are not fully able to accomplish their important tasks―largely because many nations prefer to rely upon their own military might and because some nations (particularly the United States, Russia, and Israel) are enraged that these organizations have criticized their conduct in world affairs. Even so, international organizations have enormous potential and, if strengthened, could play a vital role in creating a less violent world.
Rather than continuing to pour the wealth of nations into the failing system of national military power, how about bolstering these global instruments for attaining international security and peace?
by Citizens for Global Solutions | May 16, 2025 | Past Event
During this high-level, live-streamed public panel at the 2025 National Summit, Citizens for Global Solutions (CGS) partners came together to highlight their efforts in driving action during turbulent times. They showcased innovative approaches to addressing escalating global threats and shared how their collaboration with CGS strengthens these initiatives. The panel also offered valuable insights into the evolving landscape of global governance—exploring both the pressing challenges and emerging opportunities ahead.
Moderator: Alyn Ware, Program Director, WFM-IGP; Co-Founder, Legal Alternatives to War (LAW not War)
Speakers:
- Yasmina Gourchane, Advocacy Officer, Coalition for the International Criminal Court (CICC)
- Tess Graham, Legal Advisor, Global Justice Center
- Saul Kenny, Communication Advisor at the UN Charter Reform Coalition
- Alexandre MacIsaac, Executive Director, WFM-Canada
- Dan Perell, Representative to the United Nations, Baha’i International Community
- Karam Singh, Deputy Director, Integrity Initiatives International (III)
by Lawrence Wittner | Apr 7, 2025 | Disarmament
Amid growing international chaos, it should come as no surprise that nuclear dangers are increasing.
The latest indication is a rising interest among U.S. allies in enhancing their nuclear weapons capability. For many decades, remarkably few of them had been willing to build nuclear weapons―a result of popular opposition to nuclear weapons and nuclear war, progress on nuclear arms control and disarmament, and a belief that they remained secure under the U.S. nuclear umbrella. But, as revealed by a recent article in London’s Financial Times, Donald Trump’s public scorn for NATO allies and embrace of Vladimir Putin have raised fears of U.S. unreliability, thereby tipping the balance toward developing an expanded nuclear weapons capability.
This growing interest in nuclear weapons is especially noticeable in Europe, where Trump’s berating of NATO and Putin’s threats of nuclear attack are particularly unsettling. Although Friedrich Merz, Germany’s chancellor-in-waiting, dismissed any notion of Germany developing its own nuclear weapons, he has stated that it must explore “whether nuclear sharing, or at least nuclear security from the U.K. and France, could also apply to us.” Furthermore, several German think tank experts have floated the idea of building the infrastructure that, if necessary, could produce German nuclear weapons.
In Poland, too, a nuclear weapons capacity has become increasingly appealing. Prime Minister Donald Tusk has recently raised the idea of pursuing nuclear weapons or, at least, seeking an agreement for sharing France’s nuclear arsenal. A board director of PGZ, Poland’s state-controlled military manufacturer, remarked: “There are suddenly a lot of words and different opinions about what to do, but they all show Poland believes in stronger nuclear deterrence against Russia.”
In South Korea, North Korea’s nuclear weapons program and its growing military relationship with Russia, combined with Trump’s unreliability, have contributed to growing support for the nation’s acquiring its own nuclear weapons. Although neither of the two major parties has announced this policy, Cho Tae-yul, the foreign minister, informed parliament that acquiring nuclear weapons was “not off the table,” for “we must prepare for all scenarios.”
Similarly, the idea of developing nuclear weapons is drawing increasing scrutiny in Japan. Sharing South Korea’s fear of a North Korean attack and Trump’s unreliability, Japanese leaders also worry about China’s growing assertiveness. If a North Korean or Chinese nuclear strike occurred, Japan would have only five minutes of warning time. Moreover, thanks to its nuclear power plants, Japan already holds enough plutonium to build several thousand nuclear bombs.
In addition, of course, a nuclear arms race is well underway among the nuclear weapons-producing nations: the United States, Russia, China, Britain, France, Israel, India, Pakistan, and North Korea. All of them are either expanding their nuclear arsenals, building a new generation of nuclear weapons, or both. Most of the nuclear arms control and disarmament agreements of the past have been abandoned, while the remaining agreements are on life support. The New Start Treaty between Russia and the United States, the two nations possessing almost 90% of the world’s 12,331 nuclear weapons, is scheduled to expire in February 2026, and there are no negotiations underway to replace it. Meanwhile, in recent years, the top officials of three nuclear-armed nations―Vladimir Putin, Donald Trump, and Kim Jong Un―have issued numerous statements threatening nuclear war.
Against this backdrop, this January the editors of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists reset their “Doomsday Clock,” established in 1946, at 89 seconds to midnight, the closest ever to human extinction. The following month, U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres, deploring the unraveling of international security arrangements, warned that nuclear weapons provided a “one-way road to annihilation.”
These escalating nuclear dangers suggest that, if nuclear weapons, whether possessed by an alliance or by individual nations, are unable to safeguard humanity from total destruction, then a different approach to survival in the nuclear age is needed: one grounded in international security.
With this in mind, the official representatives of most of the world’s nations, gathering in 2017 under U.N. auspices, met and crafted the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. Endorsed by a vote of 122 to 1 (with one abstention), it banned the use, threatened use, development, manufacture, acquisition, possession, stockpiling, stationing, and installation of nuclear weapons. The treaty entered into force in January 2021, and has been signed, thus far, by 94 nations. Opinion polls and declarations by hundreds of cities in a variety of nations indicate that it has substantial public support.
Although the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons provides a useful framework for creating a nuclear weapons-free world, it has not, as yet, rolled back the nuclear menace. The reason is that its provisions are only binding on the nations that have signed it. And the nine nuclear weapons-producing nations, joined by the nations under their nuclear umbrella, refuse to do so―at least so far. Convinced that, in a world of independent and often hostile nations, their security rests upon possession of nuclear weapons, they remain unwilling to abolish them.
Even so, their resistance to the treaty might be overcome by a further step toward international security: the strengthening of international organizations. At present, the United Nations lacks the power to effectively enforce its primary mission of maintaining international peace and security. But that power could be expanded by providing the global organization with an independent source of income, restricting the role of the veto in the Security Council, and expanding the role of the General Assembly. International security would also be enhanced by increasing the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice and of the International Criminal Court.
Both Citizens for Global Solutions (CGS) and the World Federalist Movement-Institute for Global Policy have teamed up with many other concerned civil society organizations to champion “Common Security” as an alternative to nuclear deterrence. In a joint statement to the 2023 Preparatory Committee for the 11th Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference, they argued that the primary reason a significant number of nations continued to rely on nuclear weapons was “because nuclear deterrence is perceived by them as providing security.” But adopting a Common Security approach―one that took into account not only one’s own security needs, but the security needs of other nations, including adversaries―could provide a sound basis for abandoning nuclear weapons, they maintained. During the meeting in late April and early May of the 2025 Preparatory Committee for the NPT Review Conference, CGS will be holding a side event on “Common Security and Nuclear Deterrence in a Turbulent World,” as well as another on “The International Court of Justice and the Climate-Nuclear Nexus.”
Strengthening international security might seem impractical at this time of overheated nationalist claims and the global chaos they produce. Even so, times of crisis sometimes produce historic breakthroughs, and the prospect of nuclear annihilation might have that effect.
