US pulls out of international agencies including UN, why? Mr. President seeking Private Tech based governance with Negative Peace at centre?

 US President is at it again carrying out reviews in record time at the international level, just as he got Mr. Elon Musk to do it for Federal Agencies in US. Either the President is committing a blunder knowingly or is under guidance of corporate sector, what ever may be the case, its unlikely American are unaware about the complex web Mr. President is creating and Americans may pay the price for this shift.

Mr. President, even from naive logical understanding it is clear that Governance does not have a broad static framework, as in case business or even many scientific initiatives, which tech industry has expertise in and comfortable with. One of the basic reasons for the difference being everything in tech world works within concept of probabilities, something that may be elusive in governance at crucial time when complex, dynamic contextual realities determine governance at domestic or international level. Probably the reason why tech industries seek to build smart cities with control, if residence is for during work life, than it a elite concept of slavery and if it is for life time of the family then it is not going to be functional in the long term.

 The sad part is that the very fabric of governance may be destroyed through these abrupt overreaches. There seems to be none to rein in US President and his overreaches, for SCOTUS is asleep and Congress is in awe of the US President’s imagined spiritual insights into reality.

 International Governance and Trump-Tech Way

 American Federal agencies went through a roll over after President Trump used AI and Tech agencies to evaluate them based on assumption anything and everything with regard to diversity, equity, gender, discrimination, climate change and sustainability are to be discerned and removed or discontinued immediately. Subsequent to these actions, some of the steps taken were retracted, modified or adverse impact totally ignored. What America is not considering in detail is the role of AI in process of governance, whereby standardised selectivity may happen as default and its long-term impact is unknown.

Recently, President of US proudly announced that he and his team have reviewed international agencies that are either funded by the US or with whom US corporate with often through the Federal agencies.  Such speedy reviews are far more than about exaggeration they are conscious attempts to cement biases as permanent reality for governance. This is dangerous both at domestic and international level.

 At present US funds or corporates with 169-180 international agencies each year [1]. US President indicated the decision to review these international agencies in Feb 2025 through an executive order [2]. These agencies work across the globe and their area of focus diverse and complex, to carry out review of all agencies and identify those to be discontinue within less than a year time frame would mean per agency time taken would be around two days at the maximum and in case only 66 agencies were reviewed and discontinued with then US review took around over five days per agencies. In either case it would be impossible to carry out such a review.

Looking at the profiles of 66 agencies [3] that US has stopped funding or working with, it is clear that the US President has ensured the use of format as in case of domestic agencies, it would have been discerning agencies that focus on diversity, equity, discrimination, gender, environment, sustainable development, renewable energy and climate change. Such broad discerning of projects can be easily done through AI tools, but review would be superficial at the best.

 International Agencies and US way of selfless Charity- A reality Check

 Mr. President you assert, frequently, that the US has been doing charity through its international aid and with no returns. Mr. President, it is not possible that you believe that for a moment to be true, but, probably, you assume it is the best way to silence any legality of breaking all commitments, suddenly. Mr. President, even if you are blatantly ignoring the role of soft power that America has gained through these initiatives; it is fact that America believed in and enjoyed the power to govern at the international level, powerful enough to shape the internal governance system of countries across the globe. For illustration a few examples:

 a) Colombo Plan Council: America is withdrawing from it after decades of funding and active participation. Through the years US gave billions of dollars for Colombo Plan initiative but all the money was given for Drug Advisory Program that is part of Colombo Plan Council initiatives. This was part of many of the initiatives carried out by US to shape and control drug trade and drug use across the globe through war on drugs. The war on drugs was not focused on addiction but criminalized all forms of drug use cultural, social, and medicinal use. Making drugs like cannabis and opium difficult to access easily for medicinal use by practitioners of traditional systems of medicine, which meant slow but sure shift away from traditional systems of medicine.

Mr. President besides controlling drug use and drug policy, US managed to get into internal governance system of counties and tried to control it. This happened as extensive documentation was required to provide opium or cannabis to practitioners of Traditional Systems of medicine.  Through this process countries lost their cultural safety net for controlling drug use, a system that evolved through decades by emphasis on non-formal norms.  It is this safety net that ensured addiction did not happen in scale across the entire population.

Even in case of Iran, whom you, Mr. President, and UN are found of accusing of violation of human rights of drug users and traders because of their draconian drug laws that though changed in recent years still retain some of the harsh legal measure to control drug use and trade, but Iran did not have draconian laws in the past. Prior to shift in drug laws in line with US requirement under Shah regime, Iran had space for cultural, social and medicinal use of opium and cannabis or Hashish [4]. Even Shah was unable to maintain ban on drugs, which was put in place in 1955, and the extent Shah went to please Americans is clear when in 1959, even the possession of poppy seeds, such as on bread, was criminalized with up to three years of imprisonment [5]. Lager he too forced to realise that just harsh laws does not make drug control a reality. Just like many other countries in the Asian region, earlier Iran had informal systems in place to control abuse of drugs.

So, when you complain Mr. President about not receiving anything through your funding for Colombo Plan Council, remember through US funding or involvement, US interfered in the sovereignty of nations and changed not just their legal systems, but changed their cultural and social way of life, their health care practices, economic activities and life style for ever. For example, in India, in Himachal Pradesh [6], people used ropes made from cannabis fibre, they made jackets from cannabis fibre which kept them warm during winter, and other items included shoes and purses.

The shift in drug policy in places with social cultural use of mind altering substances like cannabis  and opium and changed their way of life, it does not seem to be for better as harder forms of drug use like heroin, synthetic and pharmaceutical drugs took the place of cultural forms of use (This information is also based on my work in drug abuse research from 1990-2018).

Strangely, now Mr. President, you speak about legalising marijuana use, probably a bit late but still would be useful for America based on my limited understanding of the situation. Have a question for you Mr. President as you often speak about no one thinks about repaying US for the generosity it has shown to the world. Well, Mr. President how will US repay for the harm it has caused to drug users and their families across the globe when cultural, social and even medicinal use outside regulated institutional framework was destroyed. Will US even acknowledge it made a mistake?

 2) Climate Change and Sustainable Development:

From the total of 35 Programmes that are not part of UN system and are selected for discontinuation, around 18 of these programs focus on climate change, sustainable development, energy and need for protecting our planet. It is pretty obvious US President’s love for oil does not sync with need for sustainable and environment friendly initiatives. But, beyond love for oil, US knows data centres are not an environment friendly and particularly when non energy consuming actions carried out by humans are shifted to energy hungry alternatives through robotics, AI. Through these actions and augmentation of humans through AI there would be need for ever-expanding data centres, which are 24x7 energy hungry. These concerns are part of evolving reality in domestic and international governance.

 US President is not interested in climate change or sustainable development for it hinders the path he is on for a greater role in governance both at domestic and international level for tech industry. This would mean need for huge quantity of energy that can be generated fast and in scale. The US is not like China, US President has to consider the State level policies and priorities, and the President sees focus on oil or bullying countries with large amount of oil and natural gas as the best option, for the present.

 

In the US oil accounts for an important energy source around 28-34% but it is largely used for transportation, only less than 1 % electricity is produced from Petroleum and other gases derived from fossil fuel. For electricity US largely depends on natural gas which meets 43.1% of US needs, the next source is renewable energy which covers around 21.4 % of US energy needs, the shares of other sources of energy are nuclear (18.6%) and coal (16.2%). Renewable energy is the second largest source of electricity and its growing [7]; US Presidents wants to do away with it and which would mean he needs other sources of energy to replace it. Given the hunger for water that data centres display, shift digital governance would make energy need pertinent.

Besides energy needs, there are other issues that US President is uncomfortable with regard to these programmes. For example, the programmes integrate issues such as gender sensitivity, discrimination, sustainable development and none of these issues are palatable to US President and probably for AI too. These issues bring in different layers of shades of reality within governance that has to be addressed continuously and that would be difficult for US President, and probably for AI in terms of need for intelligent synthesis in dynamic contextual reality. It also adds on to the energy needed, for even a small variation in data and its parameters when to be used 24x7 can be difficult to achieve without prioritising AI over humans.

 3. Migration Sensitive Programs

US President cannot be seen to be supportive of programmes focusing on migration and issues of migrants or immigrants. That would a political suicide, for he is evolving his image as being tough on migration at any cost including death of the suspected law breakers or inflicting trauma of various forms. The programmes on migration focus on evolving innovative solutions to handling migration, identifying good practices to scale the same across the globe. One of the programs focuses more on education for migrant population, and their work centres around the theme, Education cannot wait.

For the President of US, it would be far more appropriate to have surveillance methods and tools for managing the migrants. It is highly possible all his attempts to send Federal forces to different states in the US is nothing but an attempt to create digital surveillance system with scope for error corrections (wrong arrests), or ways to address rights violation including killing of migrants in the process of arresting them. Probably all these detailed processes will be crucial when America moves towards digital governance as already planned for by the Tech world.

 4. Art and Culture not worthy of Presidential attention

Each President or world leader would have their own preference but generally everyone follows a set path within the profile of the country; but that is not for President Trump, he has an eye for “the shine of gold” far more than any other US President. Hence, it is not surprising that US would be discontinuing from associating with two agency programmes that focus on art and culture as something to be undertaken in solidarity, inclusion, reciprocity and mutual learning [8]. The Federation that carries out the program represents a perspective that is unified in the belief that arts and culture are public good- with the potential to further inclusive social transformation- to be shaped and accessed equitably by all people.

The agency ICCROM offers world class initiatives in conservation, training, information, research, cooperation and advocacy. ICCROM has been delivering training from 1956 and it develops innovative educational programmes, tools and material for conservation and restoration. It has one of the world’s leading conservation libraries with around 120,000 books, report and specialised journals in more than 70 languages.

 5. US President’s perspective an outlier in legal matter, domestic and international

The President of US has made it clear he is not bound by domestic or international laws, and his sense of morality and legality comes from his own perception as to what is right or wrong. It would mean when dictator dictates his stand within a democratic nation, it is time for others to act for expecting change that is in line with law from the President would be foolhardy.

There are four international agencies that US is discontinuing from, they focus on international law, democracy, sustainable democracy, stability in governance, human rights and justice. These agencies view Rule of law as central for dealing with domestic and international issue, it is natural the US President would like to disassociate from such adventurous spirits. For US President believes only in his own rule of law.

 

International Development Law Organisation’s (IDLO) [8] focus for IDLO Partnership Forum 2024 was “Rule of Law Solutions for a Peaceful, Just and Inclusive Future”. This is seen as relevant when world is grappling with complex, interrelated challenges, including conflict, climate change, declining trust in institutions and growing inequalities. Rule of law is perceived as a powerful tool for promoting peace, unlocking development potential and protecting human rights for all.

As part of global governance stability, International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance focuses on sustainable democracy worldwide, and specific areas of focus include; sustainable democracy, constitutional governance, rule of law, digitalization and democracy, gender and inclusion, money in politics, political participation and political representation.

To address terrorism and related issues, Rule of law is considered central. Strengthening competence of criminal justice practitioners and other stake holders is part of the process. The work will facilitate addressing terrorism and related transnational criminal activities within a rule of law framework, promote cooperation and information sharing on national, regional, and international basis.

6) Military Industry has limited role in Positive Peace but it is central to Negative Peace Strategy

President of the US and his background support tech group have been systematically strengthening negative peace strategy and sees America’s future in it. But is this supportive of global peace and sustainable ecosystem for human survival, and even for democracy in America and its citizens’ rights is a totally different reality, which does not picture in the perspective of US President and his support group. Within this context it is understandable that US President preferred to disconnect from: Global Community Engagement and Resilience Fund; Freedom Online Coalition; Global Counter Terrorism Forum; Global Focus on Cyber Securities- specifically inclusive cyber security practices in Americas and Caribbean; and Regional Cooperation Agreement on Combatting Piracy and Armed Robbery against ships in Asia.

Review of focus of these programmes indicate Positive Peace strategies play an important role and human rights, justice and rule of law are central to these initiatives. A clear example of this is Global Community engagement and Resilience Fund, it provides grants to civil society organisation to implement initiatives aimed to prevent violent extremism and strengthen community resilience. It worked different countries through diverse number of civil societies, with seven in Kyrgyzstan, with ten in Mozambique, with 11 in Somalia, with 13 in Iraq, with 16 in Tunisia,  with six in Burkina Faso, with seven in Chad,  with six  in Mali, with 11 in Mauritania, with five in  Niger, with 31 in  The Philippines, with 14 in Sri Lanka, with 11 in Ghana, with seven in Nigeria, with 15 in Albania, with one in Bosnia and Herzegovina, with 11 in Kosovo and seven in North Macedonia.

The central focus of these initiatives is the people and not their surveillance as would be in case of Negative Peace strategies. Focus of Positive Peace approach is towards long term peace and not trying to use force without addressing the contextual realities which creates the issue of extremism. Some of the common strategies followed across countries are: identifying vulnerable population along with immediate support network or dependents (often youth and women) and strengthening their economic independence or options for the same along with strengthening their resilience to face life and its setbacks; strengthening the capacity of frontline workers in rehabilitation and reintegration services to ensure sustainability and national ownership of the program; improving relationships between communities and state actors to foster, trust and help prevent spread of violent extremism, narratives and influence. In Mozambique, the focus was on increasing mainstreaming of previously violent extremism in local decision making to ensure that policies and development efforts address root causes of radicalisation-marginalisation and exclusion.

These initiatives focused on micro reality, that shape individuals’ responses to continued discrimination and alienation. It included strengthening trust to promote inclusive dialogue, restore community solidarity and undermine the appeal of extremist ideologies that thrive in broken communities. As part of integration, providing returnee children with legal support and provision of identity documents such as issuing birth certificates which being crucial for enrolling in schools. In some countries, the frontline workers establish referral pathways to ensure that returnee children can access essential services.

 May not be surprising, another initiative that US President ensured his country discontinued interaction with is Regional Cooperation Agreement on Combating Piracy and Armed Robbery against Ships in Asia. According to this agreement between contracting parties, “Piracy” is defined as any of the following acts: (a) any illegal act of violence or detention, or any act of depredation, committed for private ends by … private aircraft and directed; (i) on the high seas, against another ship, or against persons or property on board such ship; (ii) against a ship, persons or property, in a place outside the jurisdiction of any State. Given the passion of President of the US, his Secretary of State and other staff to bomb boats in international waters under various assumption, it is not surprising that the US pulled out of this initiative.

US pulling out of UN programmes, after getting what it needed?

It is time the UN and member states within UN understood, President Trump seeks to dismantle the UN, and he has been very vocal about his perception from first term. Unlike other leaders who may have an axe to grind with regard to the structural and functional limitation which makes UN at times powerless on selectivity in matters of justice, sovereignty of Nations and on issues related to human rights but President Trump uses his disgruntle probably to hide his move to try to create alternate system for international governance, with US as the deciding authority.

UN has been extremely useful for the US and its tech corporations for it has provided how international governance can be overseen, tools needed, soft skills used. Given the active role of US because of its position of power and participation, it is possible the US has minute details about managing international governance across nations, at least in terms of documentation and the same being crucial for digital international governance. These statements are not made on any conspiracy theories but looking at number of tech agencies that has been expressing interest in smart city governance and creation of digital nations itself. One agency that has been clearly implementing their vision is Praxis [10] Nations, its predecessor was Bluebook Cities. As of January 2026, Praxis has 151,068 citizens from 80 different countries. The company Praxis has an aggregate value of $1,117 billion.

Praxis has been mulling over a site to test out their digital nations’ governance dream, at first a site in Mediterranean was selected then it was changed to Greenland. What is ignored by the so-called citizen of these nations, is that there is actually no citizenship because there is no nation or sovereignty of a nation. Digital nations and its’ governance are very well disguised reality where instead of stability continuous morphing of nations would be occurring as per the felt business sense of tech corporate sector, or as per changing contextual reality, a reality only where the ecosystem conducive for these corporates would prevail.

Like many other instances, tech corporates have yet again expressed their insatiable desire to be smart by half. Why? In my naïve mind there are some assumptions that come through:

a) A nation is more than place where people reside, have shelter and food. A nation is specific geographical location with which the people in that area identify their existence. It is not digital or in the cloud. It is real and everything matters the air, the water, the breeze, the trees, the smell of earth; knowingly or unknowingly people relate to it even when there are no pollution or other environmental setbacks. This live dynamics or association is also part of Sovereignty of nation and not just the political or judicial structures or reality of the nation.

 b) Diversity in nations is as crucial as diversity in people, but such diversity is unnecessary contextual complication for those who believe in digital nations, where AI augments everything including governance and meaning of existence. Even if AI world wanted to be inclusive about diversity, it might be difficult for it to replicate inclusivity as practiced and understood by humans as they go through life, for its dynamic, even integration is diverse in range and scale determined by local people, and most of all it would be impossible to capture the extent, range, and intricacies of diversity that is practiced across culture in the globe. Often this happens within life demarcations that keeps evolving and though not necessarily in one direction. 

Besides, AI is limited by its dependence on probability to move forward in any direction, at each and every instance in a continuous manner. This would mean many intricate aspects would get discarded to get the perfect fit and move forward. AI would lead to standardization, even diversity would be standardized, and the same is counter productive for humans and their evolution. When there are too many variations in scale of data needed for governance of nations it would mean continuous use of data which would lead to high demand not only for data centres but also energy which is already turning out to be a governance issue as the increased demand on energy impacts lifestyle and survival of humans close living close by.

c) To make digital governance viable Negative Peace would be the foundation

In everyday reality of governance across nations, irrespective of political ideology or religion governing the way of life; it is informal interaction and unwritten laws, customs and non-formal norms determined by socio-cultural reality that ensure peace and harmony as interactions official or not happens within and outside institutions. The focus of Positive Peace would be to focus on this reality and address any hints of disruptions or discomfort.

Negative Peace would be opting for surveillance and use of force to quell any hint of unrest in action or word. Within the digital reality, for negative peace it would be make hay while the sun shines, this would mean any minor transgression might be seen as a point for all out action or intervention. This would be the future reality given how surveillance will evolve in a digital world and by the fact that profit is central to governance and its management for digital governance.

Governance will be a product that is designed keeping in mind its functionality, adaptability, marketability, uniformity, client centred diverse quality delivery; and speed of access to governance and its deliverables would depend on individual’s profile or specifically resources he/she can access.  Within Digital governance certain demarcation for different categories of citizens within the governance system is always maintained. To ensure sustainable surveillance that is relevant within digital nations, it may be important for population segregation within digital world and within real world, for discontent and perceptual evidence of discrimination can lead to rebellion that would mean additional resources to control it.

 Gaza Board of Peace: need for caution and accountability:

It is possible Gaza and it being a Rivera may have been the initial Mediterranean site selected for it seems a perfect fit. Gaza offers a heavily surveillance population who can be sent to specifically demarcated location, as per the perceived ease of surveillance and control. For example, Israel has always been a long-term planner, for Israel it is not just Genocide of Palestinians, it is a genocide that destroys Palestinian Resilience and makes the Palestinians willing to sacrifice their sovereignty and opt for demilitarised society for the safety of Israeli society that carried out Genocide and relished the process and outcome. The West forgets such course of events, would be cementing the genocide as a strategy not just among Israelis and the powerful but also among the victims across the globe, clearly telling the victims from injustice in governance process or victims of crimes committed by Occupying forces, that for dignity and survival, law has no just options for the weak.

A clear illustration of how tech financiers, real estate groups, US President are faraway from having any understanding about Palestinians and their world view is given below. A clear example would be how Gaza is planned to develop and how it was before October 2023. 

Illustration makes it clear that Board of Peace and Gaza Perspective are worlds apart.

 

Giving Israel a chance to have a role in rebuilding of Gaza would be unpardonable, for Israel would use every opportunity to make creation of Palestine a distant dream. Israel and the United States and all tech companies involved in the Gaza onslaught through their technology would love a sterilised makeover of Gaza, where Gaza is devoid of any identity especially historical symbols of its aspirations for statehood or their journey towards Palestine Statehood and crimes carried out by Israel with complicity of other countries. Such a make over would be counter productive for Palestinian population that has been through genocide and had to watch it live, at times to see on social media their child being shot in cold blood by Israeli soldiers for the crime of daring to venture out to collect water for the family.

What Palestinian need it to participate in the process of rebuilding their homes and decide what is best for them, especially to ensure the memories by future Gaza would give them strength to deal with life.

The World owes Palestinians Justice and Participatory rebuilding should be the first step and not rebuilding governed by Genocidaires!

Molly Charles

Reference

 

1. FY22-U.S.- Contributions-to-International-Organizations-_10.24.2024.pdf

https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/TY22-U.S.-Contributions-to-International-Organizations-10.24.2024.pdf

2.  Federal Register: Withdrawing the United States from and Ending Funding of Certain United Nations Organizations and Reviewing United States Support to all International Organizations

 https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/2/10/2025-02504/withdrawing-the-united-states-from-and-ending-funding-to-certain-united-nations-organizations-and

3. Which are the 66 global organisations the US is leaving under Trump?|Climate Crisis News|Al Jazeera

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/1/8/which-are-the-66-global-organisationa-the-us-is-leaving-under-trump

 4. Drugs Politics

 https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/drugs-politics/part-one/BDAAD258C57303CD6A78FC31642F5C5A

 

5. Out with the old, in with the old: Iran’s revolution, drug policies, and global drug markets | Brookings

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/out-with-the-old-in-with-the-Irans-revolution-drug-policies-and-global-drug-markets/#

6. Drug Trade in Himachal Pradesh: Role of Socio-Economic Changes

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/262121527_Drug_Trade_in_Himachal_Pradesh_Role_of_Socio-Economic_Changes

7. Electricity in the U.S – U.S. Energy information Administration (EIA)

 https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/electricity-in-the-us.php#

 8. IDLO- International Development Law Organization

 https://www.idlo.int

 9.  Praxis

      https://www.praxisnation.com/#about

       https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Praxis_(proposed_city)