By Safwan Ali

Currently, around 3.7 million Afghan refugees live in Pakistan. Many have been living here for decades with their children born and raised in Pakistan. In a dramatic shift in policy, Islamabad has declared that it will deport these refugees in an attempt to strengthen national security, citing increasing concerns about cross-border terrorism and the existence of terrorist groups like Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP). While border security is a valid objective, mass deportation poses significant economic, political, and humanitarian risks. Pakistan today confronts the problem of balancing its security objectives with its enduring humanitarian commitments and international obligations.

There are three plausible approaches to tackle the issue of Afghan refugees in Pakistan. Mass deportation is the most popular yet concerning course of action. This strategy is primarily motivated by the increase in terrorist activities associated with Afghanistan-based outfits such as the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), which is a fastest growing terrorist group according to the Global Terrorism Index. Given the recent increase in violence and the porous nature of the Pak-Afghan border, it is logical to advocate for stricter regulations. However, mass deportations of refugees, pose serious humanitarian and societal concerns. Afghani girls who have been able to receive education in Pakistan, are fearing to be thrown in a country that denies them their fundamental right to education. This goes against Pakistan’s dedication to the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 4, which states that everyone should have access to high-quality education. Forced repatriation might also destabilise broader communities, which could impede Pakistan’s progress towards Sustainable Development Goal 16, which aims to create inclusive and peaceful societies.

The full-scale integration of Refugees into the Pakistani society is another yet complicate alternative. It would grant refugees the access to healthcare, education, and opportunities for employment. From a sociocultural and developmental standpoint, integration fosters enduring peace and productivity. This also corresponds with Pakistan’s initiatives pertaining to SDG 16. However, this path is fraught with complications. Public opposition, institutional constraints, and security concerns hinder the attainment of complete integration without robust systems and political consensus. This method offers long-term advantages but requires money and extensive support that may not be attainable in the short term.
An equitable and more feasible strategy would entail enhancing border security while permitting gradual and voluntary resettlement. Pakistan has already undertaken substantial measures in this regard, including the construction of nearly 2,200 km of fencing along the Afghan border and the maintenance of systems such as Proof of Registration (POR) and Afghan Citizen Cards (ACC). These instruments can help in border enforcements. Through collaboration with international agencies, Pakistan can guarantee that refugees are afforded the opportunity to either repatriate under safer circumstances or resettle in foreign countries. This progressive strategy will mitigate the risk of civil disorder and enable Islamabad to oversee refugee demographics without compromising national security. Most importantly, this policy will strengthen peace while averting a humanitarian crisis which Pakistan cannot afford.
A coordinated plan of action that include temporary inclusion and progressive relocation seems feasible to move forward. As safe and voluntary resettlement efforts are undertaken, refugees should be permitted to stay under a controlled, legal framework. This approach will acknowledge Pakistan’s sovereignty and handle valid security issues, while simultaneously respecting Pakistan’s continuing humanitarian contributions. It endorses both SDG 4 and 16 by maintaining educational access and promoting cross-cultural harmony.
This policy is also supported by compelling economic rationale. Afghan refugees substantially enhance local economies, especially in construction, agriculture, and informal markets. An immediate deportation would result in labour shortages and economic turmoil, particularly in metropolitan areas and small businesses.
Pakistan already has the infrastructure to manage refugee populations which has been immensely supported by UNHCR. Biometric registration systems and digital databases can be expanded to augment monitoring, guarantee accountability, and strengthen border security. These methods can additionally be employed to identify high-risk individuals while safeguarding vulnerable families. The approach is both pragmatic and effective, supported by institutional backing and international collaboration. Furthermore, maintaining relations with Afghan refugees would enhance Pakistan’s regional influence. Thousands of refugees act as informal connectors between the two nations, facilitating interpersonal contacts and soft diplomacy. Pakistan’s influence in upcoming regional diplomacy may suffer if these relations are abruptly severed. Maintaining ties would also reflect Islamabad’s commitment to inclusive development, which is vital for global standing.
Pakistan can fulfil both its humanitarian and national security obligations. Islamabad’s success against terrorists along its western border demonstrates that the state possesses both the resources and the capability to uphold its security. This capability can be utilised to attain wider security objectives while facilitating a dignified and systematic schedule for the resettlement of Afghan refugees. A deliberate, gradual strategy that integrates temporary inclusion with progressive resettlement is both humanitarian and strategic. It safeguards borders, fosters economic and social stability, and maintains Pakistan’s international obligations. This is not indicative of weakness, but rather of confidence. Afghan refugees do not undermine Pakistan’s stability. They serve as an evaluation of it.

About the author

Safwan Ali is a second-year graduate student at the Seton Hall School of Diplomacy and International Relations, specializing in International Security and Foreign Policy Analysis. Currently, He is a research assistant in the School of Diplomacy. Safwan completed his bachelor’s degree in Defense and Strategic Studies from National Defence University, Islamabad.

By Maximillian Otto

The United States has long been the world’s breadbasket in times of crisis, proudly shipping millions of tons of food abroad each year. But what if our generosity is sometimes doing more harm than good?

I argue that U.S. food aid, when delivered without regard to conflict dynamics on the ground, can unintentionally make civil wars longer and deadlier. The solution is clear: the United States must adopt a conflict-sensitive food aid delivery protocol; one that times and targets aid based on real-time data and local conditions, not on surplus cycles or shipping contracts.This may sound like common sense. Yet under current U.S. law, food aid is primarily sourced from domestic surplus and shipped on American vessels, thanks to the 1954 Food for Peace Act. That might make sense from an agricultural or political perspective, but it ignores a hard truth: when aid becomes predictable and poorly timed, it can become a weapon.

Research by economists Nathan Nunn and Nancy Qian shows that U.S. food aid significantly increases the likelihood and duration of civil conflicts, particularly in fragile states. When large shipments arrive on schedule, armed groups often divert or tax the aid, using it to strengthen their control or disrupt local economies. The presence of aid also changes the calculus of conflict, creating new incentives for violence along aid routes or among groups trying to control distribution.This isn’t just theory. Countries like South Sudan, Somalia, and Yemen, some of the largest recipients of U.S. food aid, have all experienced these dynamics firsthand. Predictable food shipments flowing into unstable areas become assets to fight over, not just supplies to survive on.

What’s maddening is and how fixable this problem is.

In my opinion there is  a practical, low-cost solution: a joint USDA-USAID conflict-sensitive protocol. While acknowledging the discontinuation of USAID at this point in time, I assume that the dispersion of US food aid will continue under some State Department entity due to its embedded legislative nature and its role in incentivizing domestic agriculture. This solution is not a radical overhaul but rather a smart reorganization. The plan calls for pre-shipment conflict risk assessments, flexible delivery schedules, and better use of prepositioned food stocks. These changes would allow aid to flow when it helps rather than when it harms. In simple terms, we don’t need to send less food, rather we need to send smarter food.

Some will argue this protocol adds bureaucracy or could delay shipments. But the alternative and current reality undermines peace efforts, prolongs war, and damages America’s credibility as a humanitarian leader. And reform would not dismantle current systems but instead create a more thoughtful framework through which food aid is delivered.With interagency cooperation, we can make aid delivery more nimble and more responsible.Importantly, this reform also aligns U.S. foreign assistance with the broader goals of the United Nations, even if it doesn’t directly go through UN channels. The UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), especially SDG 2 (Zero Hunger) and SDG 16 (Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions), are meant to guide how the global community addresses interconnected issues like food insecurity and violent conflict. Right now, our food aid policy is undermining both.

You can’t achieve Zero Hunger if food aid inflames the violence that causes starvation. And you can’t build strong institutions when aid distribution is co-opted by warlords instead of coordinated with local governance. A conflict-sensitive approach to food aid is exactly the kind of policy reform the SDGs demand: one that sees humanitarianism not in isolation, but in the context of peace and development.

If we don’t make this shift, we are feeding the very crises we claim to solve. And that’s not just ineffective policy. It’s immoral.In this time of significant shift in foreign policy priorities and an incredible disruption in American foreign aid as a whole, there is opportunity in the chaos. I hope that in its sweeping, sometimes disjointed crusade of reorganization, the Trump administration can shift the facilitation of food aid to a more responsible and effective process

About the Author

Maximillian Otto is a School of Diplomacy student who participated in the UN Field Seminar course in the Spring 2025 semester.

by Kaila Engle

In 2023, Haiti’s maternal mortality rate remained devastatingly high at 328 deaths per 100,000 live births, despite a slight decrease from 350 in 2020. This rate is nearly three times that of its Caribbean neighbors and reveals a stark regional disparity and a dire public health crisis. The Dominican Republic, Haiti’s next-door neighbor, has an estimated 124 deaths per 100,000 live births. Cuba has 35 deaths and Jamaica has 130, both of them neighboring Haiti in the Caribbean Sea. This comparison shows how drastic the maternal mortality in Haiti is in the region. The significant difference between Haiti and its neighboring nations serves as an urgent call for action. Contributing to these results is a lack of access to healthcare infrastructure and services, including hospitals for childbirth and medical staff. In 2016, it was found that only 38% of births in Haiti occurred in healthcare facilities, with the majority taking place at home. The need to give birth at home or be unable to get to a hospital comes from the widespread gang violence that has taken hold throughout Haiti and displaced hundreds of thousands of people. Gang violence has been prevalent in Haiti for decades, but it began to intensify after the assassination of Haiti’s president in 2021. Gang violence, which has plagued Haiti for decades, has surged after the 2021 assassination of its president. This violence has displaced hundreds of thousands, destroyed healthcare infrastructure, and limited the healthcare services available to pregnant Haitian women. UNICEF has found that in 2025, 85% of Haiti’s capital, Port-Au-Prince, is controlled by gangs.  

To address the maternal mortality crisis going on in Haiti, the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) has implemented a variety of services to provide support for healthy deliveries. These services include the distribution of reproductive health medicines and equipment to the maternity hospitals, the deployment of mobile clinics, and the establishment of women’s safe spaces. In 2023 alone, 13,500 women were assisted during childbirth at UNFPA facilities. With President Trump’s withdrawal of funding from the UNFPA, their services in Haiti will be extremely strained, and the lives of thousands of Haitian women are under threat. The US was the main donor of the UNFPA, donating $161,663,042 in 2023. That support has kept the lights on in these healthcare facilities, provided mobile health services to women in need, and saved countless lives. With the loss of that funding, the UNFPA’s ability to provide these services will be reduced. In a country like Haiti, where healthcare is already scarce and difficult to access, this is a death sentence for thousands of women. The international community needs to take action to fill the gap from this loss in funding.  

The international community must step up to fill the gap left by the US funding withdrawal. UNFPA’s loss of support will impact vital services worldwide, but nowhere more urgently than in Haiti, where the consequences could be catastrophic. An estimated 150-170 people visit the UNFPA’s medical clinics in Haiti. As well as from November 2024 to January 2025, UNFPA had assisted over 666 deliveries, including cesarean procedures, in Haiti. In 2023, 13,500 women were assisted during childbirth at UNFPA facilities. These services offer pivotal support to the community and address the maternal mortality epidemic in the region. With the loss of funding, the outreach of these services is going to be limited, especially as pregnancies continue to emerge. UNICEF has also concluded that there has been a 1,000% increase in sexual violence towards children in Haiti, specifically young girls. Doctors have noted a surge in pregnancies, teen pregnancies specifically, linked to the rise in sexual violence, which could further exacerbate maternal health issues. Already lacking the proper access to healthcare, the anticipation of more pregnancies, and a loss in the funding for pivotal resources to help them give birth, is going to be very bad for the already rampant maternal mortality problem in Haiti.  

If the international community does not act swiftly to fill this gap, we are not just talking about a temporary setback in Haiti’s healthcare system. We are talking about the unraveling of progress that saves thousands of lives every year. The situation is urgent, and the consequences of inaction are too severe to ignore. The world must step up. The loss of funding from the US is a setback, but it should not be the final word. Other nations, international organizations, and private stakeholders must recognize the humanitarian responsibility at stake and step in to ensure that women in Haiti have access to the healthcare they need to survive and thrive. The fight for maternal health in Haiti is not just a local issue; it’s a global one. And it is up to the global community to ensure that the lives of these women are not expendable. 

Kaila Engle is a School of Diplomacy student who participated in the UN Field Seminar course in the Spring 2025 semester.

By Sofia Carolina Diaz

On January 22, 2021, the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) entered into force. The news barely registered in Washington. Yet on that day, over 90 nations stood up to declare that the world’s most dangerous weapons have no place in a civilized society. The United States was not among them.

As nuclear tensions rise in Eastern Europe, East Asia, and beyond, the U.S. continues to modernize its nuclear arsenal at a projected cost of $1.5 trillion over 30 years. At the same time, it claims to support disarmament under the older Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). That contradiction hasn’t gone unnoticed. A growing number of countries, especially in the Global South, are calling the bluff. The United States must respond not with silence or skepticism but with strategic leadership. It’s time for Washington to engage with the TPNW.

The NPT, signed in 1968, was supposed to balance three objectives: preventing nuclear proliferation, promoting peaceful nuclear energy, and reducing nuclear arsenals. But while it succeeded in limiting the spread of nuclear weapons, its third pillar, disarmament, has all but collapsed. The U.S., Russia, and China are all investing heavily in new warheads and delivery systems. And as that arms race accelerates, the moral and strategic cost of deterrence increases, especially with rising risks of miscalculation or accidental launch.

The TPNW challenges this inertia. It doesn’t just prohibit nuclear weapons; it criminalizes their possession, use, and threat. Critics argue this is idealistic. But the treaty is built on the same humanitarian logic that bans chemical and biological weapons. Nuclear weapons are unique in their destructive power, and in their incompatibility with human rights. Recognizing this doesn’t weaken U.S. national security; it strengthens global stability.

Many American allies and adversaries alike see the U.S. position on nuclear disarmament as hypocritical. While Washington insists on non-proliferation for others, it refuses to make meaningful moves toward its own reductions. That damages U.S. credibility, particularly with nations in the Global South that face the consequences of global nuclear policy without having any say in shaping it.

Engaging with the TPNW, even as an observer, would signal a shift. It would show that the U.S. is willing to listen, to lead with humility, and to explore a path forward that does not rely indefinitely on weapons of mass destruction. This isn’t about unilateral disarmament. It’s about strategic realignment, toward dialogue, diplomacy, and reduced reliance on nuclear threats.

Article VI of the NPT legally binds the United States to pursue disarmament “in good faith.” But how can that be reconciled with new missile systems, warhead designs, and trillion-dollar nuclear budgets? Simply put: it can’t. The U.S. needs to start aligning its defense policies with its legal and moral obligations.

This means revisiting the Nuclear Posture Review. It means halting plans for new warheads and focusing instead on reducing the role of nuclear weapons in U.S. strategy. And it means launching a new diplomacy initiative, one that brings together allies and rivals alike to negotiate reductions that are real, verifiable, and fair. Engagement with the TPNW can be the catalyst.

Skeptics will argue that engaging with the TPNW is naïve, that it undermines U.S. commitments to NATO and the nuclear umbrella that deters aggression. But engagement does not mean withdrawal. It does not mean disarmament tomorrow. It means starting a conversation we’ve avoided for too long. The risks of doing nothing, accidental war, erosion of global norms, or diplomatic isolation, are far greater.Others fear backlash from allies who depend on U.S. nuclear protection. But true allies deserve honesty. They deserve leadership that protects not just borders, but futures. And many of them, Germany, Norway, New Zealand, are already moving toward TPNW engagement themselves.

The world has changed since the Cold War. Today’s security threats, climate change, pandemics, cyber warfare, aren’t stopped by nuclear bombs. Clinging to Cold War logic won’t keep America safe. Leadership, innovation, and cooperation will.By engaging with the TPNW, the U.S. has a chance to be what it has always claimed to be: a champion of peace, a defender of human dignity, and a country brave enough to lead by example. Let’s not wait until the next nuclear crisis starts moving in the right direction.

About the Author

Sofia Carolina Diaz  is a School of Diplomacy student who participated in the UN Field Seminar course in the Spring 2025 semester.

by Mackenzie Andersen

Climate change affects all populations, but its impacts are far from equal. Recent studies have shown that not only are women more likely to be affect by climate change than their male counterparts, but the relationship between climate change and women is deadly. Increased climate change related events has led to rising sexual and gender-based violenceagainst women and girls. As the planet continues to heat up, women are facing the brute force of the consequences, especially in one of the world’s most climate vulnerable sub-regions, North Africa.

The UN World Meteorological Organization (WMO) stated that in 2024 North Africa has the highest recorded temperature change at 1.28°C above the average from 1991-2020; this has made it the fastest warming region in Africa. Within North Africa, climate change is already deepening already existing inequalities. With fragile economies, limited infrastructure and agriculture dependency, extreme weather events, such as heatwaves, prolonged droughts, floods, coastline erosion, and water scarcity have a catastrophic effect on the livelihoods of millions. All of which have a devastating effect on agriculturally based jobs and women, as women across North Africa make up nearly half of the active population in agriculture and face unequal challenges. Yet women lack land rights, financial independence, and access to green energy alternatives, and when crop-yields fall short, and water scarcity threatens their towns and villages, it is women that are expected to work harder, walk farther, and even drop out of school to manage the increasing threat of climate change Women and girls are also uniquely affected as studies have shown that during times of climate instability there is an increased likelihood of child marriages and heightened reproductive health risks.

It is clear that the issue of climate change is no longer just a threat to women in North Africa, but the deadly reality for millions of women and girls. In addition, women are still underrepresented in climate change fighting policies and initiatives along with, women-led climate change solutions remaining minimal as well as investments. The main issue stays steady, many climate-adaptation focused projects have failed to address and grasp the gender dimension of climate change, but women are not only victims of climate change, they are the key to solving it.

To mitigate this, the UN Development Programme and the African Union must come together and launch a women-led green energy and climate resilience initiative. This initiative would focus on empowering women as leaders in green energy in North Africa through the funding of women-run green energy solutions that bring together international and regional bodies to increase community support. This initiative would implement solar, and wind powered energy cooperatives as well as using solar-powered water pumps and harvesting rainwater. This initiative empowers women as entrepreneurs and stakeholders in green energy with the tools to access financing, educational resources, and ensures that women have a voice in regional and international climate policy decisions.

This initiative strengthens community resistance to climate change through local women-led initiatives and supports international and regional cooperation and integrates the need for climate action while also address the gendered effects of climate change. This initiative, however, would require continuous and would require long-term funding, thus unfavorable for outside donors. This initiative would also require a large-scale project, across multiple countries with varying levels of support and infrastructure needs, but the cost of human lives and environmental effects is too high to remain inactive.

This initiative is not new, across the African continent, women have been leading the way for climate change resistance and programs centered on women-led climate solutions for years. These programs however are historically underfunded and lacking the support needed to integrate into larger society and regional bodies such as the African Union. The countries of North Africa have the ability to scale up projects and initiatives that work, and fight climate change with women at the center.

The first step would be consult with the African Union and state governments of North African countries to gather participating countries, as well as isolate and identify the most climate vulnerable regions within these countries and bridge the gap between local women and their governments.

The next step would be to source the funding; to ensure financial stability the initiative could draw from both public and private means of funding. The Green Climate Fund that was established within the framework of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change would be a fantastic option as it supports low-income and developing countries in their fight against climate change. The UNDPs Climate Promise Initiative would be another fantastic funding partner as it focuses on supporting climate action in more than 140 countries, and a portfolio north of $2 billion in grant funding. Lastly I would look at the African Development Bank’s Sustainable Energy Fund for Africa. This fund is a multi-donor fund contributed to by many developed countries such as the United States, The United Kingdom, Norway, and many others. This fund specifically contributes to access to affordable and sustainable energy service for all in Africa. These three funding contributors would give women in North Africa ample funding and support from fund and initiatives focused on supporting both local and regional governments in their fight against climate change.

While climate change is global, the fight against it starts locally. By concentrating on the unequal gendered impacts of climate change on women, we create more effective solutions that tackle multiple effects of climate change. North Africa has the chance to show the world how including women in the fight against climate change is not to be questioned, its required. By demonstrating that climate resilience and gender equality are not separate battles but one in the same, North Africa can combat climate change and support its most affected group, women.

The future of climate resilience relies on intersectionality and inclusion of climate-vulnerable groups, using sustainable solutions to tackle the devastating effects of climate change. The women in North Africa are ready to stand up and fight climate change; the question is, is the international community ready to support them?

About the Author

Mackenzie Andersen is  a School of Diplomacy student who participated in the UN Field Seminar course in the Spring 2025 semester.

by Zainab Pieh

In 2023, Burkina Faso’s former transport minister was sentenced for embezzling public
funds, a rare conviction in a country where corruption has long undermined public trust. Vincent
Dabilgou, who served from 2018 to 2022, was found guilty of siphoning over 1.1 billion FCFA
($1.7 million), money laundering, and illicitly financing his political party. While this may seem
like progress, it’s just the tip of the iceberg. Beneath the surface lies a procurement system where
bribes, opaque budgets, and political favors run unchecked, weakening institutions and stealing
opportunity from everyday citizens.

Public procurement is the government’s process of purchasing goods and services, and
should be a tool for domestic growth. But Burkina Faso has become a hotbed for corruption and
mismanagement. According to Transparency International’s 2024 Corruption Perceptions Index,
Burkina Faso scored 41 out of 100, ranking 82nd out of 180 countries, only sly above the
sub-Saharan African average of 33. Nearly 16% of public service users reported paying bribes in
the previous year, and over a quarter of citizens believe corruption has increased. Tens of
millions of dollars are diverted each year, draining the economy and deepening inequality.
Corruption erodes trust, undermines public services, and distorts fair competition within the
private sector. It does not just break laws, it breaks lives.

Within Burkina Faso, there are intense hidden costs of corruption. With over 74% of
public sector employment in Burkina Faso occurring within informal structures, making
oversight difficult and corruption easy to hide. These shadowy networks lead to:
● Inflated procurement costs
● Unfair advantages for politically connected firms
● Fewer resources for essential services like healthcare, education, and infrastructure
When these public contracts are awarded based on bribes instead of merit, everyone pays the
price, especially citizens who depend on reliable, functional government services.

Identifying the corruption is only the first step. The real challenge lies in dismantling the systems
that enable it. Burkina Faso’s history is marked by entrenched patronage networks and a culture
of impunity, particularly under former President Blaise Compaoré, whose regime was notorious
for embezzlement and political repression. In Burkina Faso, reforming public procurement
requires bold, measurable action that restores transparency, accountability, and institutional trust.
While the problem is complex, Burkina Faso can begin to rebuild its procurement system from
the inside out.

One powerful reform tool that can be implemented is budget codes. These alphanumeric
sequences categorize expenditures clearly, tracking where public money is going and who is
accountable for its movement.
An example of a budget code and its breakdown is showcased below:
PW-STR-M-2025-
PW= Public Work
STR= Street Maintenance
M= Materials
2025= Budget Year

By enforcing the use of these codes across agencies, it would allow ARCOP (Burkina Faso’s
procurement authority) can audit the spending, as well as detect anomalies, and ensure
transparency. Countries that have implemented similar systems have seen dramatic
improvements in accountability and resource efficiency.

The usage of budget codes will require a remake of the system, and, as a nation within the
developing world, assistance is necessary. Burkina Faso’s budget transparency score is 4.43 out
of 10, indicating significant room for improvement. Too pattern for progress, Burkina Faso
doesn’t need to tackle corruption alone. A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the
OECD would bring the country into a powerful international framework of anti-bribery
standards.

The OECD’s Working Group on Bribery has helped over 35 countries strengthen their
procurement systems. Through an MOU, ARCOP could potentially:
● Access best practices and technical support
● Gain international credibility
● Hold both domestic and foreign contractors to higher ethical standards
This partnership would help insulate the procurement process from political interference and
provide a blueprint for long-term reform.

It is safe to assume that these solutions won’t be easy to implement. Budget transparency
requires strong data systems and political backing. International partnerships require diplomacy
and trust. And yes, entrenched elites who benefit from corruption will likely resist. But the cost
of maintaining the status quo is far worse: lost funds, weakened institutions, and increased
instability. The 2020 coup in Burkina Faso, while not directly caused by defense embezzlement,
was fueled by widespread mismanagement and public frustration – much like what we’ve seen in
neighboring Mali and Niger.

Fighting corruption is about more than chasing criminals. It’s about building institutions that
serve people, not politicians. With transparent budgeting tools and stronger international
cooperation, Burkina Faso can chart a new path rooted in trust, accountability, and sustainable
development. These reforms won’t just strengthen procurement – they’ll help restore confidence
in democracy itself.

Zainab Pieh is a School of Diplomacy student who participated in the UN Field Seminar course in the Spring 2025 semester.

By Zuleyha Cite

Changing international order shifting to a new phase around the middle-emerging powers and rising powers. New alignments and the demand for ‘reform’ in international organizations are directly related to this change. Fundamentally, the existence of International Organizations (IOs) is a necessity in world politics to create cooperation for sustainable development, facilitate negotiations, and settle conflicts. Indeed, IOs play a functional authority role in international governance depending on their purposes of establishment, recognition by the member states, their legitimacy, and most importantly level of compliance with their decisions. In this context, the United Nations Security Council is one of the most important bodies of the UN, which is the only IO that has 193 member states. Indeed, one of the most effective powers that can legitimize any military operation with its enforcement mechanisms. This characteristic of the UNSC makes its role unique in shaping the world’s future politics and distinguishes itself unambivalently from other IOs. As stated in UN Charter, Chapter V: The Security Council, Article 24; “To ensure prompt and effective action by the United Nations, its members confer on the Security Council primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security and agree that in carrying out its duties under this responsibility the Security Council acts on their behalf.“Article 24 definitively underlines the responsibility of preserving world peace and security; however, calls for reform have become louder in recent years, and criticisms of its mechanism and decision-making procedures have increased. Ineffectiveness in responding and managing international crises, inefficiency in promptly acting, and a lack of representation are main issues. While the international order is changing and evolving, the permanent five members of the UNSC preserve their place in it. In this sense, IOs are more likely to transform themselves through orchestration contestation, or structural reforms. Despite the obstacles posed by international conflicts today, IOs are shifting and transforming as a reaction to the emerging trends contexture by rising and superpowers. In this sense, the ongoing international transformation unveils the need for inclusive adaptation of the UNSC reform and the approaches of great powers to engage constructively.

Key problems in the current UNSC mechanism: the post-World War II states are disproportionately favored by the antiquated UNSC structure. Asia, Latin America, and Africa are underrepresented, which undermines the legitimacy of the Council. Lastly, the current framework restricts inclusive dispute resolution and equitable representation. This paper argues that the necessity of the reform and the role that the UNSC plays in shaping the world’s peace and security today, extremely vital for a larger space for negotiations and the promotion of new norms in future global governance. Taking into account the realities of the international order, expanding the council without a veto formula is the only feasible way for a better representation for underrepresented members and a larger opportunity to be part of the UNSC negotiations with a deliberative agenda-setting ability.

The main changes outlined in this policy proposal will reform the UNSC and increase its effectiveness, democracy, and representation. As Khalil and Lavaud assert; “the principal organ entrusted with primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security under the Charter of the United Nations, the Security Council’s record since the turn of the millennium has been largely defined by failure and paralysis.’’In this context, the main barrier to the UNSC mechanism’s efficiency is a lack of geopolitical representation. While the UNSC was established in 1946 with a reflection of post-World War II superpowers, it does not reflect today’s changing international order, which causes a limited representation to react to any security crisis timely manner. As Nadin, who is an experts in UN studies argue “Yet, contorted by structural power politics, the council has often been unable to suppress the various threats to international peace and security that have beset the world. This has led many critics to bemoan the council for its failure to act swiftly and effectively to contain international crises.’’

Why is the UNSC Reform important for policymakers? Bringing suggestions to the United Nations is the responsibility of policymakers of member states, and this work is intended to clarify and search for potential benefits of UNSC reform for a better, peaceful, safe, and secure world. This proposal is geared towards urging analysis of limited representation and its caused complications to the UNSC. With this project, the transformation and the change in the council’s working mechanism will make the UNSC more efficient in decision making, which will increase the achievement of  Sustainable Development Goal  16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions in an international manner.

The United Nations Security Council(UNSC) was established in 1945 after World War II to promote and protect the world’s peace and security. The Council had 11 members in total: 5 permanent and 6 non-permanent member states. Currently, it has 15 members, 5 permanent members(China, France, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom, and the United States) and 10 members elected by the General Assembly for two-year terms. Today, the UN has 193 member states; however, the UNSC members a total of 15 which does not represent all UN member nations. In other words, the 1963 UNSC structure did not renew itself in 2025 today’s world. In this sense, member states had a long call for reform over the decades. Calls for renewal started in the 1990s. In 1994, Razali Ismail of Malaysia was made chair of the Open-Ended Working Group on the Question of Equitable Representation on and Increase in the Membership of the Security Council and Other Matters Related to the Security Council. The resolutions presented by the Op-Ed working group were rejected because they did not hold the 2/3 of majority however, this initiative led to the exploration of reform ideas. Beginning of the 2000s rising call for reform started again. “At the Millennium Summit (2000), the international community again resolved, “to intensify [its] efforts to achieve a comprehensive reform of the Security Council in all its aspects.”  In 2003, Annan appointed a High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change. The panel’s report—A More Secure World: Our Shared Responsibility—affirmed a set of reform principles and presented two models for the membership’s consideration.’’ In 2005 summit, ‘’In the Millennium Declaration, all States resolved to intensify their efforts “to achieve a comprehensive reform of the Security Council in all its aspects” (see General Assembly resolution 55/2, para. 30)’’ and rising resolution drafts from G4(Germany, Japan, India, Brazil), the African Union moreover the other middle power nations such as Türkiye, their emphasis on the reform during annual GA sessions has been one of the most important agendas of international governance. Lastly, the call from civil society is another dimension of the UNSC reform. For instance, The Elders, which was founded by Nelson Mandela in 2007, is a group of independent global leaders who aim to work towards the world’s peace, security, human rights, and sustainable goals.  Most of the members have a prestigious leading political and diplomatic background and experience in their professional lives. Members include important names such as Kofi Annan, Jimmy Carter, Helen Clark, Ricardo Lagos, and many more. In 2015, The Elders shared a statement that included four recommendations, calling for (1) veto restraint, (2) a new category of Security Council membership, (3) a stronger voice for civil society through the Arria formula, and (4) a more independent secretary-general.

To sum up, UNSC reform debates have been going on for decades without any progress in consensus; however, an important phase in discussions has emerged. The reform is extremely important to reflect an equitable representation for a better, functional council. Disagreements in proposed resolutions and permanent members’ resistance are the main obstacles standing in the way of the reform. Many crucial reforms came after decades of negotiations, and I strongly believe that UNSC reform will become a reality in the future as a result of this ongoing discussion, the power of diplomacy, and the art of negotiation.

Despite being the most powerful body in the UN system,the UNSC is shaped by a geopolitical reality that dates back to 1945. Reform demands have increased, particularly from the Global South. Through a novel hybrid model that incorporates semi-permanent seats, strengthens regional voice, and improves accountability mechanisms, this policy brief suggests an alternate reform path that would preserve the veto while increasing both permanent and non-permanent representation. The conspectus of the UNSC Reform demand and proposed resolutions history can be summarized under three options. Throughout the history of the reform demand several countries have proposed the abolishment of veto power. This option fundamentally shifts the decision-making making a more legitimate level and provides full equity in the council; however not realistic in practice. Indeed, while it is still challenging to negotiate with P5 members for an alternative reform, it is unexpected for P5 members to act against their interests. On the other hand, I strongly believe this would be a destruction of the UNSC mechanism, and it would cause more tension and less stability. The second option is increasing the number of permanent seats and adding veto power for underrepresented regions. This option is one of the best options if P5 members agree; however, many resolutions, such as A/61/L.69/Rev.1, A/60/L.41, and many more proposed and were not approved by the council or the General Assembly. Adding veto rights enhances the regional balance fully and promotes the dream council; however, the difficulty of negotiations with P5, their strong opposition, and the possibility that to may not provide long-term authority make this option not possible. Last option, which is the option this paper proposes: expanding the council from 15 to 28 members with adding 6 new permanent members(no veto), 4 new non-permanent seats, and 3 rotational semi-permanent seats, 28 in total without a veto formula. This recommendation improves the equitable representation for underrepresented members. It requires strong negotiations with P5 members; however a feasible option in practice.

Increasing the council from 15 to 28 is a reasonable extension, big enough to represent contemporary world circumstances without being too extreme to interfere with functionality. This option expands representation while maintaining a reasonable size for decision-making; adding 13 members makes space for additional permanent and non-permanent arrangements.  6 New permanent states will be non-veto permanent members with full participation rights. This adaptation aims to provide complete deliberative, agenda-setting ability. It aims to bring more diverse voices to the Council, especially during the times responding to urgent conflicts that arise, and to create opportunities for more effective diplomatic negotiations, particularly between veto powers and underrepresented regional members, through broader negotiation opportunities. Furthermore, by providing greater representation in conflict management, underrepresented countries are given a seat, a tool, to bring the change they demand. The recommendation of 6 new permanent seats without a veto formula represents the main regional powers that have historically been underrepresented and avoids the political difficulties of adding more veto-wielding members. These members shall be elected according to the following model: 2 for Africa, 1 for Latin America and the Caribbean, 1 for Asia, 1 for the Middle East/North Africa, 1 for Western representation. The main logic of ‘’permanent but without veto’’ provides influence and recognition without disrupting the power dynamics and aims to avoid P5 resistance.

The second phase of this policy recommends expanding non-permanent members from 10 to 14 to provide more rotating representation, particularly for underrepresented areas, promote inclusion, and increase the opportunities for small and medium states to serve. Lastly, for 6-year periods, creating 3 rotational semi-permanent seats designed to be set aside for regional nations that make significant contributions to diplomacy and peacekeeping. The members will be elected through Regional elections and GA confirmation. The seat rotation shall be according to the following pattern: One seat alternates between Asia-Pacific and Africa, one seat alternates between the Middle East and North Africa, and the Group of Latin America and the Caribbean, and one seat alternates between Western Europe and Eastern Europe. This formula provides a middle ground between short rotation and complete permanency. Aims to stabilize representation for mid-sized but reliable contributors (such as South Korea, Mexico, Turkey, and Indonesia).By rotating every six years and renewable once (up to 12 years). This hybrid working method offers a new involvement for member states while respecting local influence, and it maintains a straightforward structure without diminishing the significance of permanent membership. Lastly, the voting threshold of roughly 60%, or 17 votes out of 28, should be used for adoption of any decision. 17 Votes maintains the two-thirds majority reasoning, which is currently 9 out of 15, ≈ 60%. This formula ensures that resolutions passed by the enlarged Council still need a broad consensus. Another important dimension of this policy recommendation is to create a mechanism for limiting the use of the veto in certain circumstances. Any P5 use of the veto should require a public statement and explanation. This recommendation encourages adherence to the France-Mexico plan and the ACT Code of Conduct to discourage the use of veto power in circumstances of mass crimes.

In conclusion, reforming the UNSC while preserving the veto is the only politically feasible option for the near future. With today’s global governance, it is not realistic to remove the veto power. I create a more credible and equitable Council by expanding its membership to 28, implementing new permanent and semi-permanent representation models, and encouraging regional dialogue without changing the balance of power. A bold but practical framework for improving the effectiveness, inclusivity, and trust of global government is offered by this plan.

About the Author

Zuleyha Cite is a second-year graduate student at the Seton Hall School of Diplomacy and International Relations who participated in the UN Field Seminar course in the Spring 2025 semester.

by Andrew Travis

Sub-Saharan Africa leads the world in mobile money transactions, but millions of Africans still
can’t open an account. Home to the world’s most dynamic mobile money ecosystem, the region
processed more than 70% of the world’s $1.26 trillion mobile money transactions in 2022. This
financial revolution is powered by telecom services like Kenya’s M-Pesa, Ghana’s MoMo, and
Nigeria’s Opay. These platforms allow people to send, receive, and store money on their SIM
cards. They have expanded access to financial services in areas that traditional banks have long
underserved. While the numbers might indicate a transformed continent, the reality is more
uneven and urgent. Women, rural communities, and displaced people across Sub-Saharan Africa
are still limited from participating in this digital revolution. Without smart, targeted policy
interventions, mobile money risks reinforcing the same inequalities it has the potential to solve.

Mobile money enables millions of cell-phone users to save, send, and receive funds without ever
entering a bank. It also allows micro-entrepreneurs to run businesses, farmers to access credit,
and families to receive remittances instantly. In Ghana, for example, more than 80% of adults use
mobile wallets like Momo. Throughout the region, mobile money supports agent networks and
tech startups, creating thousands of jobs.

Not everyone benefits equally. A study backed by the World Bank found that in Mali, only
14.69% of women had access to a financial institution or mobile money service in 2017, in
contrast with 25.64% of men. That gap is still an issue. In sub-Saharan Africa, women are 29%
less likely to use mobile internet than men. Over a quarter of adults with accounts
in Ethiopia say that they don’t use them because of confusion and mistrust of telecom companies.
These usage gaps result from barriers disproportionately affecting the poorest and most
vulnerable.

There are a few barriers that need to be addressed. The first obstacle is digital literacy, a problem
disproportionately faced by women and older adults. Even with access to mobile phones, users
can lack the confidence or skills to navigate mobile platforms. In countries like Ethiopia, the
challenge starts at early childhood development: a recent national assessment found that 56% of
second and third-graders were illiterate. These early education gaps leave adults unprepared for
basic digital tasks. Gender also plays a role. In much of Sub-Saharan Africa, women are less
likely to attend school, own a smartphone, or be taught how to use financial apps. Mobile money
platforms will continue to leave them behind without targeted digital education efforts.

The second barrier is the issue of infrastructure. Although urban areas benefit from dense and
robust mobile networks and electricity, many rural regions are still disconnected. In the
Democratic Republic of Congo, for example, more than 60% of the population lives without a
reliable mobile service. And still, when there is coverage, weak agent networks limit users’
ability to cash in or cash out their accounts. Energy is a critical limitation as well. Mobile
systems cannot function without electricity to charge phones or power agent kiosks. A model for
addressing the energy issue is the African Development Bank’s “Desert to Power” initiative,
which aims to bring solar energy to over 250 million people in the Sahel. Still, digital
connectivity needs to be explicitly integrated into similar programs if we want to unlock their
full potential.

And last but not least, there is the barrier of regulation. Most mobile money systems require
compliance with Know Your Customer (KYC) rules, which require formal identification.
However, many displaced people and informal workers don’t have national IDs. Countries like
Uganda and Nigeria have excluded thousands of refugees and undocumented people with strict
SIM registration mandates. These are the people for whom mobile money can serve the best.
There is technology that exists to fix this issue. Countries like Ghana have introduced tiered
KYC frameworks that allow low-risk users to open basic accounts with small amounts of money
and minimal identification. These types of systems help expand access while preserving financial
integrity. But there are still problems like political resistance and fears of fraud that have kept
broader adoption of these tiered frameworks from taking place.

What’s undeniable is that mobile money adoption is growing rapidly. There are governments,
telecom companies, and donors experimenting with new strategies to promote inclusion.
Rwanda’s Digital Ambassadors program trained local youth to teach digital skills in rural areas.
Both the World Bank and the UNDP have supported national financial inclusion strategies across
Africa. But these efforts are still fragmented and often don’t reach the “last mile.” In a lot of
cases, they reinforce the existing gaps by helping the already connected, educated, and
documented. There is room to do better.

If we want mobile money to live up to its promise, there needs to be a public-private push across
three fronts: digital literacy, infrastructure, and regulation. National governments and
development agencies must invest in scalable digital education, and rural networks and energy
expansion must be prioritized in infrastructure projects. Governments should adopt flexible,
risk-based KYC rules while allowing humanitarian IDs to bring the excluded into the system.
Mobile Money is a powerful tool for development in Sub-Saharan Africa, but technology alone
will not close the gap. It’s a policy challenge that requires vision, investment, and inclusion in its
design. Without addressing these issues, we risk building a digital economy as unequal as the one
it was meant to replace.

 Andrew Travis is a School of Diplomacy student who participated in the UN Field Seminar course in the Spring 2025 semester.

by Allie Vice

Forget the Force—what humanity really needs now is fusion power. In a galaxy not so far away (our own), the race to secure clean, limitless energy has turned our collective gaze back to the Moon. Resting just beneath its surface lies an extraordinary resource: Helium-3, a rare isotope capable of fueling our planet’s energy needs for the next 10,000 years without the radioactive waste of traditional nuclear power. Even more remarkable? We already possess the technology to mine it. The question isn’t whether we can harness this power; it’s whether we’ll do so for the benefit of all humanity or stand by as a new empire of monopolies rises to control and corrupt this unprecedented opportunity. The battle for the future isn’t among the stars—it’s here, and it’s happening now.  

As Helium-3 mining moves from science fiction to reality, the international community must act now to develop collaborative funding partnerships and a strong governance structure that will prevent monopolization and promote universal access to this energy source.  

We already have, or are very close to having, the technology needed to extract Helium-3 from the Moon and bring it back to Earth. What we don’t have is the funding to make this happen. Relying on taxpayer dollars isn’t realistic, especially since it will take years before we see the results. Instead, international organizations like the United Nations should partner with private companies to raise the necessary funds. For example, according to ICON Build, NASA is working with ICON, a private space company, to develop sustainable human habitats on the Moon using robotic technology. ICON plans to use autonomous robots to mine lunar rock and 3D print structures directly on the Moon’s surface, cutting down the need to transport building materials from Earth. In addition to its technological expertise, ICON has already raised over $500 million for its projects and is valued at around $2 billion, as reported by Silicon Valley Investclub. Partnerships like this can provide both the advanced technology and the financial resources needed to close the funding gap and move these efforts forward. 

The bigger issue we face isn’t just technology or funding; it’s the lack of clear and updated space laws. Right now, space is uncharted territory, with only a few treaties in place to guide how we operate beyond Earth. The main agreement we rely on is the Outer Space Treaty, which has strong international support with 115 member nations and 22 additional signatories, according to The Planetary Society. But this treaty was created back in 1967, two years before humans even landed on the Moon, and it hasn’t been updated since. It simply doesn’t address the modern challenges we face today. And as much as I enjoy the Mandalorian or Boba Fett in Star Wars, we cannot let space become as lawless as the Wild West or the Outer Rim. To prevent powerful nations from monopolizing critical resources like Helium-3, we need a strong, permanent branch of the United Nations focused on space governance. While the UN already has the Office for Outer Space Affairs (UNOOSA), it hasn’t been updated or strengthened since 1993. We have two choices: create a new governing body or empower UNOOSA to develop the laws and regulations needed to ensure fair access to space resources. If we fail to act, we risk seeing the wealthiest spacefaring nations take control of this vital resource, leaving others behind. 

Helium-3 represents an incredible opportunity for clean energy. According to EDInformatics, the top few meters of the Moon’s surface contain an estimated 1.1 million metric tons of this isotope. To put that into perspective, just 25 metric tons could power the United States for a year, as reported in an article by ExplainingTheFuture.com. In total, this supply could meet global energy needs for nearly 10,000 years. According to The European Space Agency, what makes Helium-3 especially valuable is that it’s nonradioactive, meaning it doesn’t produce hazardous waste like traditional nuclear energy sources. By forging partnerships with private companies and establishing a strong, permanent UN body dedicated to space governance, we can access this resource responsibly, support our economies, and ensure fair access for all nations. Beyond Helium-3, this approach lays the groundwork for future space, from helping developing countries grow their own space programs to modernizing outdated treaties like the Outer Space Treaty–and much more. 

There are two main challenges to this mission: the Moon Agreement and potential conflicts of interest between global equity and private businesses. Some argue that the Moon Agreement prevents individual nations from mining on the Moon, because article 2 states it “is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty” and it “shall be the province of all mankind”. However, the agreement doesn’t explicitly ban mining. Instead, it leaves the issue open-ended, stating that if mining were to occur, it would require an international system to govern it, as noted by the Institute of Air and Space Law. One purpose of creating a separate UN body for space would be to establish this system and create specific branches for initiatives like Helium-3 mining, following the guidance of the Moon Agreement. This body would also set clear rules for space resource extraction, requiring private companies to operate under licensing agreements that include profit-sharing with developing countries and investments in global clean energy projects. This approach allows private innovation to continue while ensuring the benefits of space resources are shared fairly across all countries.  

The path forward is clear: we can either stand by as a new empire of monopolies rises to control the final frontier, or we can lead with courage and cooperation to ensure space remains a shared domain for all humanity. The choice is ours, but the time to act is now and we have to fully commit ourselves to establishing collaboration. In the words of a famous Jedi, “Do or do not. There is no try.” May the fusion be with us all. 

About the Author 

Allie Vice is a School of Diplomacy student who participated in the UN Field Seminar course in the Spring 2025 semester.