Gautam Banerji commented on "WINDOW PEEKING (by Myra Rudin)"
2 hours ago
Great stuff! We need more!
Horst Max Cerni commented on "WINDOW PEEKING (by Myra Rudin)"
11 hours ago
nice photos. keep it up.
Unknown commented on "No Appeal: Detlef Palm"
20 hours ago
Thanks. Three aspects which I’ll be happy to develop further - a bit later.
1/ for decades we have observed - and continuously shared - that UNICEF substituted itself for Government ‘s own responsibilities. Examples abound. Strategies sometimes differ.
2/ Many Governments we work with, do not care for the basic services accessible to all. So, insisting four times in late 2025 that they themselves first of all should, is welcome.
3/ Believing that saying this out loud to the Security Council these days is good enough, is not enough. UNICEF is well positioned to examine in 2026 every bilateral MoU between the USA and the recipient (?) country. I studied painstakingly the recent one with Nigeria. It overtly degrades everything multilateralism stands for. It is empty of engagement and commitment from either side. In fact, I shall argue that the intentional misconceptions - in particular those concerning women and children - are harmful for the entire human rights ethic. A disaster only waiting to happen.
Fri Jan 9 Ludo Welffens
1/ for decades we have observed - and continuously shared - that UNICEF substituted itself for Government ‘s own responsibilities. Examples abound. Strategies sometimes differ.
2/ Many Governments we work with, do not care for the basic services accessible to all. So, insisting four times in late 2025 that they themselves first of all should, is welcome.
3/ Believing that saying this out loud to the Security Council these days is good enough, is not enough. UNICEF is well positioned to examine in 2026 every bilateral MoU between the USA and the recipient (?) country. I studied painstakingly the recent one with Nigeria. It overtly degrades everything multilateralism stands for. It is empty of engagement and commitment from either side. In fact, I shall argue that the intentional misconceptions - in particular those concerning women and children - are harmful for the entire human rights ethic. A disaster only waiting to happen.
Fri Jan 9 Ludo Welffens
Yesterday
If divorce settlements applied to geopolitics, Europe would be demanding alimony from Washington, and Russia would still owe reparations from the last three marriages.
Unknown commented on "WINDOW PEEKING (by Myra Rudin)"
2 days ago
Do they drink Coke in Paris?
2 days ago
Browsing the list of UN outfits, the US is leaving, I noted UNAOC, which I can not recall having come across in my 30 years with the organisation. So I asked AI what they were up to and got the following reply:
"UNAOC is not a treaty-based body, has no operational mandate, no field presence, and no measurable lifesaving impact. It exists largely as a Secretariat-led initiative producing conferences, statements and fellowships—activities that may be well-intentioned but sit far outside the UN’s core responsibilities.
At a time when WFP cuts food rations, UNICEF closes programmes, and UNHCR reduces protection, it is entirely legitimate for member states to ask why scarce taxpayer money should fund a loosely governed “dialogue platform” that duplicates work already done by UNESCO, OHCHR and others.
The United States is not “abandoning multilateralism” by leaving UNAOC. It is doing what responsible donors should do: prioritising institutions that save lives, protect civilians and deliver results over those that mainly generate rhetoric".
"UNAOC is not a treaty-based body, has no operational mandate, no field presence, and no measurable lifesaving impact. It exists largely as a Secretariat-led initiative producing conferences, statements and fellowships—activities that may be well-intentioned but sit far outside the UN’s core responsibilities.
At a time when WFP cuts food rations, UNICEF closes programmes, and UNHCR reduces protection, it is entirely legitimate for member states to ask why scarce taxpayer money should fund a loosely governed “dialogue platform” that duplicates work already done by UNESCO, OHCHR and others.
The United States is not “abandoning multilateralism” by leaving UNAOC. It is doing what responsible donors should do: prioritising institutions that save lives, protect civilians and deliver results over those that mainly generate rhetoric".
2 days ago
Rob, we also take couples!
Detlef Palm commented on "No Appeal: Detlef Palm"
2 days ago
The press release - and my observation on it, was about South Sudan, not Sudan.... (though I agree with your above view of Sudan)
In Response to a comment by Unknown
Unknown commented on "No Appeal: Detlef Palm"
2 days ago
Let’s be honest about Sudan. This catastrophe did not emerge in a vacuum, nor was it engineered in Northern Europe. The UAE, Saudi Arabia and Egypt have been decisive external actors—financing factions, shaping incentives, and sustaining the very power structures that now tear the country apart.
If regional powers insist on playing kingmakers, they cannot outsource the bill when the project collapses. Responsibility follows influence.
European taxpayers did not arm militias, bankroll generals, or turn Sudan into a chessboard for Gulf and Nile geopolitics. Yet once again, they are told to foot the humanitarian bill while those who helped break the country continue business as usual.
Aid is not a substitute for accountability. If Sudan is to be stabilised, those who broke it should be the first to pay—financially, politically, and diplomatically.
If regional powers insist on playing kingmakers, they cannot outsource the bill when the project collapses. Responsibility follows influence.
European taxpayers did not arm militias, bankroll generals, or turn Sudan into a chessboard for Gulf and Nile geopolitics. Yet once again, they are told to foot the humanitarian bill while those who helped break the country continue business as usual.
Aid is not a substitute for accountability. If Sudan is to be stabilised, those who broke it should be the first to pay—financially, politically, and diplomatically.
Rob Carr commented on "Everybody Needs Somebody: The Editors"
2 days ago
I think you can count me in - now amongst the several thousands of staff who have "left" UNICEF for various reasons - and now have some spare time to fill. However, I may have failed the first tech test - and by mistake picked my wife's gmail rather than mine - please help me get out of that?
Unknown commented on ""Rewirement" Stories Needed : Arthur van Diesen and Will Parks"
2 days ago
I hope it is Ok to still to leave voluntarily, abit early, with some space left to enjoy life without deadlines, micromanagement, flogging proposals, bending the knee to donors, holding one's nose to clear a dodgy government DCT, or other things. Just enjoy life and don't over think the golden years? Rob (only one my 4th week off the teat)
Bertie Mendis commented on "Two Things Which are not True - Venezuela by Nury Vittachi : Shared by Kul Gautam"
2 days ago
Indeed Kul and Sam. TV was a brilliant political satirist in Sri Lanka before his tenure with UNICEF. His pen name was “fly by night”.
Wish each of you and families a truly joyful New Year with Good Health and peace of mind.
Warm regards. Bertie
Wish each of you and families a truly joyful New Year with Good Health and peace of mind.
Warm regards. Bertie
Sam Koo commented on "Two Things Which are not True - Venezuela by Nury Vittachi : Shared by Kul Gautam"
2 days ago
Brilliant. Don't we all love that quote? I miss Tarzie; he was my favorite Buddha in a western temple.
Happy New Year to you all, friends
Sam
Happy New Year to you all, friends
Sam
2 days ago
Total isolation––to crash the country to the ground
Nuzhat Shahzadi commented on "WINDOW PEEKING (by Myra Rudin)"
2 days ago
Dear Myra,
I love your photograpy. These are beautiful, healing. I have a bunch of photographs to share. With so much insanity going on around us is exhausting. Don't have the energy to upload them.
Thanks for sharing yours.
I love your photograpy. These are beautiful, healing. I have a bunch of photographs to share. With so much insanity going on around us is exhausting. Don't have the energy to upload them.
Thanks for sharing yours.
Jan 8, 2026
The suggestion that this contraction somehow came “out of the blue” is, frankly, disingenuous. Everyone who spent serious time inside the aid system knew we were drifting long before donors lost patience.
We knew that results were often overstated, that incentives rewarded compliance rather than impact, and that weak management was tolerated as long as the language was right and the reporting good. We knew that internal dysfunctions, fear of speaking up, protection of underperformers, and bureaucratic bloat were discussed endlessly over beers and never addressed meaningfully. We knew that reform was talked about more than it was practised.
The uncomfortable truth is that many aid organisations survived for decades not because they were demonstrably effective, but because they were rhetorically convincing, morally insulated, and politically convenient. When donor priorities shifted and scrutiny hardened, that protective shell cracked. The fall from favour did not begin in 2025. It began decades ago, inside our own institution.
This is precisely why some of us chose to leave before being forced out. My own early retirement was not about fatigue or loss of belief in helping people; it was about recognising a system increasingly unable, and often unwilling, to correct itself.
If Humanitarians Rewired is to be honest, its first chapter should ask: what happened? And it should also ask: what did we know, and why did we accept it for so long? Rewirement should not be a euphemism for polite exit. It should be a reckoning.
We knew that results were often overstated, that incentives rewarded compliance rather than impact, and that weak management was tolerated as long as the language was right and the reporting good. We knew that internal dysfunctions, fear of speaking up, protection of underperformers, and bureaucratic bloat were discussed endlessly over beers and never addressed meaningfully. We knew that reform was talked about more than it was practised.
The uncomfortable truth is that many aid organisations survived for decades not because they were demonstrably effective, but because they were rhetorically convincing, morally insulated, and politically convenient. When donor priorities shifted and scrutiny hardened, that protective shell cracked. The fall from favour did not begin in 2025. It began decades ago, inside our own institution.
This is precisely why some of us chose to leave before being forced out. My own early retirement was not about fatigue or loss of belief in helping people; it was about recognising a system increasingly unable, and often unwilling, to correct itself.
If Humanitarians Rewired is to be honest, its first chapter should ask: what happened? And it should also ask: what did we know, and why did we accept it for so long? Rewirement should not be a euphemism for polite exit. It should be a reckoning.
Jan 7, 2026
Nice project. Arthur and Will – what made you logically conclude that separation and rewiring is preferable to hanging in?
Unknown commented on "WINDOW PEEKING (by Myra Rudin)"
Jan 7, 2026
Beautiful
Jan 7, 2026
America First — or America Alone?
There is a legitimate debate to be had about the United Nations’ expanding social and normative agenda. Much of it has drifted beyond the UN’s core purposes of peace, security, humanitarian relief, and development into what even sympathetic observers would concede is ideological signalling and bureaucratic self-justification. From that perspective, Washington is right to ask whether endless resolutions on gender sub-definitions, DEI formulations, or aspirational SDG rhetoric actually deliver results for children, women, the poor or merely sustain a global conference industry.
But a fair critique must distinguish substance from strategy. On that score, the current US approach looks less like principled reform and more like unilateral negation.
For decades, American influence at the UN rested not on moral purity but on coalition-building. Washington shaped outcomes by drafting language, trading concessions, and quietly leading blocs of like-minded states. Today, by contrast, the United States is forcing votes on texts it knows will pass overwhelmingly, stripping language after consensus has formed, and then presenting its isolation as proof of virtue. That may satisfy domestic political audiences, but it is not statecraft.
A superpower that repeatedly finds itself voting alongside only Israel, Argentina, and a handful of microstates is not leading by example; it is advertising its own diplomatic marginalisation. Even governments privately sceptical of the UN’s social agenda, like India, Indonesia, much of Africa, and parts of Eastern Europe, are not rallying to Washington’s banner; they are quietly working around it.
This is where America First risks becoming America Alone.
The irony is that by disengaging from negotiation while insisting on maximalist objections, the US is strengthening precisely the dynamics it claims to oppose. When Washington abandons the negotiating table, the language does not become more restrained; it becomes more activist, more rigid, and less accountable. The vacuum is filled by European delegations, UN secretariats, and advocacy coalitions with little electoral accountability.
There is an error in dismissing these resolutions as “performative” while simultaneously expending diplomatic capital to defeat them. If the texts truly have no operational consequence, why detonate consensus mechanisms that have historically allowed the US to shape peacekeeping mandates, humanitarian access, and sanctions regimes where real interests are at stake?
The critique of the UN should aim at discipline, not demolition. The United States should be arguing for fewer resolutions, clearer mandates, tighter budgets, and measurable outcomes, not voting “no” on children’s nutrition texts to make a point about gender terminology. It blurs priorities and alienates allies whose support Washington will need on China, Iran, Ukraine, and the future of peacekeeping.
The UN does need reform, and consensus politics can become a cover for lowest-common-denominator thinking. But reform is achieved by leading coalitions, not by testing how alone one can stand.
America’s strength has never been that it was always right. It was that, more often than not, others followed. If even quiet sympathisers are now diplomatically manoeuvring to contain the United States rather than align with it, that should prompt reflection. America First may work when it still understands the value of friends.
There is a legitimate debate to be had about the United Nations’ expanding social and normative agenda. Much of it has drifted beyond the UN’s core purposes of peace, security, humanitarian relief, and development into what even sympathetic observers would concede is ideological signalling and bureaucratic self-justification. From that perspective, Washington is right to ask whether endless resolutions on gender sub-definitions, DEI formulations, or aspirational SDG rhetoric actually deliver results for children, women, the poor or merely sustain a global conference industry.
But a fair critique must distinguish substance from strategy. On that score, the current US approach looks less like principled reform and more like unilateral negation.
For decades, American influence at the UN rested not on moral purity but on coalition-building. Washington shaped outcomes by drafting language, trading concessions, and quietly leading blocs of like-minded states. Today, by contrast, the United States is forcing votes on texts it knows will pass overwhelmingly, stripping language after consensus has formed, and then presenting its isolation as proof of virtue. That may satisfy domestic political audiences, but it is not statecraft.
A superpower that repeatedly finds itself voting alongside only Israel, Argentina, and a handful of microstates is not leading by example; it is advertising its own diplomatic marginalisation. Even governments privately sceptical of the UN’s social agenda, like India, Indonesia, much of Africa, and parts of Eastern Europe, are not rallying to Washington’s banner; they are quietly working around it.
This is where America First risks becoming America Alone.
The irony is that by disengaging from negotiation while insisting on maximalist objections, the US is strengthening precisely the dynamics it claims to oppose. When Washington abandons the negotiating table, the language does not become more restrained; it becomes more activist, more rigid, and less accountable. The vacuum is filled by European delegations, UN secretariats, and advocacy coalitions with little electoral accountability.
There is an error in dismissing these resolutions as “performative” while simultaneously expending diplomatic capital to defeat them. If the texts truly have no operational consequence, why detonate consensus mechanisms that have historically allowed the US to shape peacekeeping mandates, humanitarian access, and sanctions regimes where real interests are at stake?
The critique of the UN should aim at discipline, not demolition. The United States should be arguing for fewer resolutions, clearer mandates, tighter budgets, and measurable outcomes, not voting “no” on children’s nutrition texts to make a point about gender terminology. It blurs priorities and alienates allies whose support Washington will need on China, Iran, Ukraine, and the future of peacekeeping.
The UN does need reform, and consensus politics can become a cover for lowest-common-denominator thinking. But reform is achieved by leading coalitions, not by testing how alone one can stand.
America’s strength has never been that it was always right. It was that, more often than not, others followed. If even quiet sympathisers are now diplomatically manoeuvring to contain the United States rather than align with it, that should prompt reflection. America First may work when it still understands the value of friends.
Unknown commented on "Mini-reunion in Miami - Fabrizio and Bilge Bassani meet Fouad and Nadia Kronfol"
Jan 6, 2026
Wonderful be well
Unknown commented on "Mukesh Kapila on US turning UN-OCHA into its sub-contractor : Shared by Kul Gautam"
Jan 5, 2026
There is some truth to this, particularly if you include the NGO aid outfits.
In Response to a comment by Thomas Ekvall
Jan 4, 2026
The UN’s problem long predates recent donor behaviour. The system is riddled with structural contradictions that make genuine coordination almost impossible.
UN agencies are expected to cooperate and coordinate while simultaneously competing fiercely for donor funding. These objectives are inherently incompatible. In any other sector, certainly in business, you do not meaningfully coordinate with your competitors. You seek to outperform them. The incentives are clear and predictable.
This competition encourages agencies to behave as de facto subcontractors to donors, tailoring programmes and priorities to funding streams rather than to system-wide priorities. Organisational growth, budget protection and institutional survival inevitably take precedence over coordination. Even the best professionals respond rationally to a flawed incentive structure.
The proliferation of coordination bodies has compounded, not solved, the problem. Layers of “coordination” have been added without addressing the underlying conflict of interest, producing more process, more meetings and more bureaucracy with no added value.
Reform cannot be achieved merely by adjusting funding levels or imposing conditionalities. Unless the UN confronts its internal incentive contradictions, it will continue to underperform.
UN agencies are expected to cooperate and coordinate while simultaneously competing fiercely for donor funding. These objectives are inherently incompatible. In any other sector, certainly in business, you do not meaningfully coordinate with your competitors. You seek to outperform them. The incentives are clear and predictable.
This competition encourages agencies to behave as de facto subcontractors to donors, tailoring programmes and priorities to funding streams rather than to system-wide priorities. Organisational growth, budget protection and institutional survival inevitably take precedence over coordination. Even the best professionals respond rationally to a flawed incentive structure.
The proliferation of coordination bodies has compounded, not solved, the problem. Layers of “coordination” have been added without addressing the underlying conflict of interest, producing more process, more meetings and more bureaucracy with no added value.
Reform cannot be achieved merely by adjusting funding levels or imposing conditionalities. Unless the UN confronts its internal incentive contradictions, it will continue to underperform.
Jan 4, 2026
This seems to me to have an easy solution: The 'Payback' should be in the form of a paper IOU, leaving the auditors to sort it out. . . . . .
Unknown commented on "Mukesh Kapila on US turning UN-OCHA into its sub-contractor : Shared by Kul Gautam"
Jan 4, 2026
Sadly , the UN has been a sub contractor for donors long before this. While I disagree with draconian cuts and tied aid - the rapid growth of UN coordination entities has been nothing short of ridiculous. We seem to be unable to reign in ourselves. 35 years ago when we had UN coordination bestowed on the most able UN agency preeence in humanitarian response - were we worse off? I recall it worked very well - and did not add an extra layer of fluff. We had a stake in it and that was important.
Unknown commented on "Missing You - Ata Mai, Age 7"
Jan 4, 2026
What a tragedy
Dec 31, 2025
Thanks Thomas - my view has always been that this ballooning of regional office and HQ takes funds away for implementation of programs for children at country level. And as you said, the people who pay the price disproportionately are young P2, P3 and P4s who are at mid career. It did not effect the D1s and D2s who were close the the DEDs that were architects of the Future Focus Initiative (FFI) that entail cutting junior staff by the 1000s and an obsession with musical chairs - moving all these senior staff from New York to Istanbul or Florence or Bangkok.
My point was not to winge about staff - but the ballooning of staff to me always implied less funds reach children. Once UNICEF management became more obsessed with musical chairs of moving staff around and HQ locations - we lost site of children. But as Detlef always contemplates - the aid model is broken - has not delivered results and the trajectory or less developed countries has not budged for many many years - as those governments have failed to: collect revenue, regin in corruption, and channel their own revenue towards the social sectors that benefit children and build a future for them. Of course as cushy retirees who enjoyed unfettered careers in a UNICEF that never cut anything ever - we never experienced that.
To make matters worse - it is not like a person who has been sacked in UNICEF can just re-tool and apply for some other positions in Oxfam or DANIDA - all aid positions have had massive budget cuts. So there is no place to turn as a 45 year old nutritionist with specialization in stunting prevention. A person at mid career who had their post cut - and was given 6 month notice - cannot just go back "home" and move on (assuming they have kept some connection to home and domestic options to retool career and reintegrate the workforce. ).
This shift - the global massive cuts to almost all aid budgets that has deeply affected all organization who depend on it - is unprecedented. Therefore, the steps needed to re-tool careers are also unprecedented. Sitting in my arch chair waiting for my first pension payment to arrive - I offer pretty much NO actionable advice to all the 1000s of staff who have suddenly lost jobs.
I and some other UNICEF colleagues have always pushed host governments wherever I have worked as UNICEF - to shift their budget incrementally towards efforts to improve the lives of their children. for the most part this fell on deaf ears - as it did not really matter what we said so long as those counterparts were enjoying the land cruisers, international trips, meetings at 5 star hotels with limitless buffets (workshop topic was stunting).
Anyway, the debate will continue.
My point was not to winge about staff - but the ballooning of staff to me always implied less funds reach children. Once UNICEF management became more obsessed with musical chairs of moving staff around and HQ locations - we lost site of children. But as Detlef always contemplates - the aid model is broken - has not delivered results and the trajectory or less developed countries has not budged for many many years - as those governments have failed to: collect revenue, regin in corruption, and channel their own revenue towards the social sectors that benefit children and build a future for them. Of course as cushy retirees who enjoyed unfettered careers in a UNICEF that never cut anything ever - we never experienced that.
To make matters worse - it is not like a person who has been sacked in UNICEF can just re-tool and apply for some other positions in Oxfam or DANIDA - all aid positions have had massive budget cuts. So there is no place to turn as a 45 year old nutritionist with specialization in stunting prevention. A person at mid career who had their post cut - and was given 6 month notice - cannot just go back "home" and move on (assuming they have kept some connection to home and domestic options to retool career and reintegrate the workforce. ).
This shift - the global massive cuts to almost all aid budgets that has deeply affected all organization who depend on it - is unprecedented. Therefore, the steps needed to re-tool careers are also unprecedented. Sitting in my arch chair waiting for my first pension payment to arrive - I offer pretty much NO actionable advice to all the 1000s of staff who have suddenly lost jobs.
I and some other UNICEF colleagues have always pushed host governments wherever I have worked as UNICEF - to shift their budget incrementally towards efforts to improve the lives of their children. for the most part this fell on deaf ears - as it did not really matter what we said so long as those counterparts were enjoying the land cruisers, international trips, meetings at 5 star hotels with limitless buffets (workshop topic was stunting).
Anyway, the debate will continue.
Dec 30, 2025
What strikes me in this debate is how little attention is paid to the children who will now go without lifesaving assistance and how much attention is given to those staff who may lose their jobs. That imbalance is telling.
The uncomfortable truth is that we have always tended to prioritise ourselves. We cultivated an identity as heroic aid workers while presiding over an organisational model that drifted away from the people it was meant to serve. When I left UNICEF in the early 2000s, approximately 1,200 staff members were based in the New York HQ out of a total workforce of around 7,000. It did not require management excellence insight to see that something was misaligned.
Since that time, matters have worsened rather than improved. The number of HQ staff increased, and regional office staff ballooned, overlapping layers multiplied, and coordination became an industry in itself. Large sums were absorbed by internal processes, reporting, strategic frameworks, and evaluations, often designed more to reassure donors than to demonstrate impact. Too often, the organisation focused on internal comfort, career progression, and post-retirement security rather than making a meaningful difference in Africa.
Much of what is now happening to UN agencies is therefore less an external injustice, but more of an internal reckoning. The donors are not irrational to ask whether development aid has delivered what it promised. Africa, after many decades of assistance, has not caught up; in many respects, it has fallen further behind. That failure cannot be blamed solely on geopolitics or donors. Aid agencies must own their share of responsibility.
This does not diminish sympathy for staff now paying the price for decades of poor strategic decisions. But it does mean we should be honest: the crisis is largely self-inflicted. Calls to “adapt or die” may sound brutal, but ignoring inefficiency, duplication, and drift for decades was cruel to both taxpayers and beneficiaries.
For UN agencies to be relevant, the focus must be on outcomes for those we claim to serve, not on preserving institutions, posts, or lifestyles. Anything else is a moral failure dressed up as concern.
The uncomfortable truth is that we have always tended to prioritise ourselves. We cultivated an identity as heroic aid workers while presiding over an organisational model that drifted away from the people it was meant to serve. When I left UNICEF in the early 2000s, approximately 1,200 staff members were based in the New York HQ out of a total workforce of around 7,000. It did not require management excellence insight to see that something was misaligned.
Since that time, matters have worsened rather than improved. The number of HQ staff increased, and regional office staff ballooned, overlapping layers multiplied, and coordination became an industry in itself. Large sums were absorbed by internal processes, reporting, strategic frameworks, and evaluations, often designed more to reassure donors than to demonstrate impact. Too often, the organisation focused on internal comfort, career progression, and post-retirement security rather than making a meaningful difference in Africa.
Much of what is now happening to UN agencies is therefore less an external injustice, but more of an internal reckoning. The donors are not irrational to ask whether development aid has delivered what it promised. Africa, after many decades of assistance, has not caught up; in many respects, it has fallen further behind. That failure cannot be blamed solely on geopolitics or donors. Aid agencies must own their share of responsibility.
This does not diminish sympathy for staff now paying the price for decades of poor strategic decisions. But it does mean we should be honest: the crisis is largely self-inflicted. Calls to “adapt or die” may sound brutal, but ignoring inefficiency, duplication, and drift for decades was cruel to both taxpayers and beneficiaries.
For UN agencies to be relevant, the focus must be on outcomes for those we claim to serve, not on preserving institutions, posts, or lifestyles. Anything else is a moral failure dressed up as concern.
Dec 30, 2025
and my apologies to those staff who just left UNICEF regional offices - but it really was not a well thought out expansion of UNICEF - as HQ and ROs both ballooned over the past decade into a overlapping, expensive layer of oversight. It was horrible how the cuts over the last year decimated mostly junior staff in HQ and RO - but with some fore-thought this could have been avoided - with some careful planning to allow staff to retire, separate early and then not replace them in order to slowly tighten the belt. Over a decade we could have become more lean - and been better placed to weather the storm that hit us the past year. I even suggested this- about 8 years ago - only to be publicly humiliated by the DED for suggesting we become more efficient. She hard lessons being learned - with young UNICEF staff paying the price - for the most part.
Dec 30, 2025
and for the second way to save - why not eliminate all UN agency (including UNICEF) regional offices. What a joke. Can anyone explain what is the role of a regional office? The most recent version of UNICEF ROs had a real budget of 1 BILLION USD for the last 4 year cycle - half from RR and half from OR - how could that have been a wise investment?
Dec 30, 2025
Rob Carr here - officially retired. While I am against the US government cuts - I am not against holding UN to a higher standard and reducing waste. For starters why not drop OCHA and the UNRC system - this gobbles up a larger portion of grants and has not proven to add value in improving UN efficiency. By proven I don't mean a UN sanctioned evaluation that confirms we are doing well - but my experience of knocking heads with UN coordination does not indicate any impact - and the coordination layers scoops up huge amount of funds for no benefit. What happened to the good old days when a large Un agency was in charge of coordination - it can even be a rotational things. It is not rocket science. Look for darker days - as the UN will have to prove some relevance not only to USG - but to all our donors.
Dec 29, 2025
Thank you, Fritz, for your message. Hope is, of course, indispensable after a year as bleak as 2025. But while optimism comforts, realism instructs.
We are unlikely to gather around a global campfire singing Kumbaya anytime soon. The emerging “new world order,” if it can even be called an order, is shaping up to potentially be harsher and less forgiving than the one it is replacing. In a multipolar world marked by U.S. retrenchment, European weakness, and increasingly assertive authoritarian powers, peace and social justice will not arise simply from good intentions.
If anything, this moment should prompt serious reflection about how we arrived here: the complacency, the strategic naivety, and the repeated assumption that norms, institutions, and prosperity would sustain themselves without power, credibility and sacrifice. Hope is necessary, but it must be accompanied by clarity, resilience, and a willingness to confront uncomfortable truths.
Wishing you and all colleagues health and steadiness in 2026.
We are unlikely to gather around a global campfire singing Kumbaya anytime soon. The emerging “new world order,” if it can even be called an order, is shaping up to potentially be harsher and less forgiving than the one it is replacing. In a multipolar world marked by U.S. retrenchment, European weakness, and increasingly assertive authoritarian powers, peace and social justice will not arise simply from good intentions.
If anything, this moment should prompt serious reflection about how we arrived here: the complacency, the strategic naivety, and the repeated assumption that norms, institutions, and prosperity would sustain themselves without power, credibility and sacrifice. Hope is necessary, but it must be accompanied by clarity, resilience, and a willingness to confront uncomfortable truths.
Wishing you and all colleagues health and steadiness in 2026.
Dec 28, 2025
Thank you Fritz for your wise words and positive spirit. It is what we wish for in a nutshell even as we look at new clouds in Venezuela and Nigeria. But may it be as hopeful as you say. Habib Hammam
Dec 28, 2025
Terrifically taxing! The tongue trembles and the typist taps out a tacit surrender. One applauds the tenacity, though suspects the tongue itself demanded this tour de force as terminal revenge.
That said, this towering torrent tempts a troubling thought: was the tongue truly tamed—or merely thoroughly entertained? For while truth, tact and temperance were triumphantly trumpeted, the text itself tottered tantalisingly close to triumphant self-indulgence.
Still, to traverse such treacherous terrain without tripping too terribly is a talent few possess. I thank Tharoor for this titillating tongue-twister, though humbly suggest that the letter “T” may now take a temporary timeout to recover.
That said, this towering torrent tempts a troubling thought: was the tongue truly tamed—or merely thoroughly entertained? For while truth, tact and temperance were triumphantly trumpeted, the text itself tottered tantalisingly close to triumphant self-indulgence.
Still, to traverse such treacherous terrain without tripping too terribly is a talent few possess. I thank Tharoor for this titillating tongue-twister, though humbly suggest that the letter “T” may now take a temporary timeout to recover.
Dec 27, 2025
Talented, thoughtful, thrilling, transformative, thoroughly terrific!
Dec 27, 2025
Talented, thoughtful, thrilling, transformative, thoroughly terrific!
Dec 27, 2025
Many of us in the retired aid-worker community spent entire careers redistributing wealth, operating inside institutions funded almost solely by capitalist economies, while simultaneously denouncing the very system that made our work, our salaries, and now our pensions possible. That is not moral seriousness; it is intellectual dishonesty.
The record is not ambiguous. Every durable escape from mass poverty in the past century has been driven by growth, markets, trade, productivity, and institutional competence, followed, where states were capable, by targeted redistribution. No country has ever redistributed itself into prosperity. Yet the reflex remains to prescribe ever more social engineering, despite decades of poor results, and although the greatest reductions in child mortality, hunger, and extreme poverty occurred precisely where countries integrated into the global capitalist system.
What is being defended here is not evidence-based development policy, but a career-long moral identity. Admitting that socialism failed, or that markets did more for the poor than aid ever did, would require acknowledging that much of one’s professional life was spent managing symptoms rather than curing causes. That is a hard reckoning, so the ideology is preserved, even as reality refutes it.
Capitalism is not virtuous. It is effective. And effectiveness matters more to poor children than good intentions. Continuing to advocate economic models that have failed everywhere, while living comfortably off the surplus generated by capitalism that works, is not solidarity. It is the last luxury belief of people insulated from the consequences of being wrong.
If development is to mean anything beyond permanent dependency management, it must finally abandon comforting myths and submit to outcomes. The poor deserve results, not recycled failed ideologies.
The record is not ambiguous. Every durable escape from mass poverty in the past century has been driven by growth, markets, trade, productivity, and institutional competence, followed, where states were capable, by targeted redistribution. No country has ever redistributed itself into prosperity. Yet the reflex remains to prescribe ever more social engineering, despite decades of poor results, and although the greatest reductions in child mortality, hunger, and extreme poverty occurred precisely where countries integrated into the global capitalist system.
What is being defended here is not evidence-based development policy, but a career-long moral identity. Admitting that socialism failed, or that markets did more for the poor than aid ever did, would require acknowledging that much of one’s professional life was spent managing symptoms rather than curing causes. That is a hard reckoning, so the ideology is preserved, even as reality refutes it.
Capitalism is not virtuous. It is effective. And effectiveness matters more to poor children than good intentions. Continuing to advocate economic models that have failed everywhere, while living comfortably off the surplus generated by capitalism that works, is not solidarity. It is the last luxury belief of people insulated from the consequences of being wrong.
If development is to mean anything beyond permanent dependency management, it must finally abandon comforting myths and submit to outcomes. The poor deserve results, not recycled failed ideologies.
Unknown commented on "Important Announcement: News & Views Will Close in March 2026, Unless......."
Dec 25, 2025
Merry christmas and happy new year
In Response to a comment by Unknown
Unknown commented on "Important Announcement: News & Views Will Close in March 2026, Unless......."
Dec 24, 2025
An organisation’s standing, relevance, and credibility are nothing more than the sum of its people and its leadership. That rule applies as much to the UN and its agencies as to any private firm or public body. For decades, those working in structures such as the UN Development System have known that their contribution to meaningful development outcomes was marginal at best. Endless reform initiatives followed, but most amounted to little more than bureaucratic theatre: new frameworks, new acronyms, new reporting lines—rearranging deckchairs rather than changing course.
The uncomfortable truth is that there was little incentive for genuine reform while funding remained abundant. It was always possible to point to a minor, carefully selected indicator that had improved, thereby justifying generous salaries, lavish benefits, and pension schemes that bore no relation to performance or impact. Only now, as donor money tightens, does a sense of alarm suddenly emerge. That donors have grown sceptical should surprise no one. This reckoning has been a long time coming—and it is largely self-inflicted.
The uncomfortable truth is that there was little incentive for genuine reform while funding remained abundant. It was always possible to point to a minor, carefully selected indicator that had improved, thereby justifying generous salaries, lavish benefits, and pension schemes that bore no relation to performance or impact. Only now, as donor money tightens, does a sense of alarm suddenly emerge. That donors have grown sceptical should surprise no one. This reckoning has been a long time coming—and it is largely self-inflicted.
Dec 24, 2025
With 3000 UNICEF staff on abolished posts and about 300 of us pressed to "voluntarily separate" and this had to happened at short notice and we must separate by 31 Dec - (i.e next week) surely someone could step in and help on this?. I just started retirement almost 2 weeks ago - would be interested to help but could not do this alone - we are traveling for the next year searching for a base - so won't be settled anywhere or with lots of idle time. but I would need to know - what is the TOR to manage this? Could it be scaled back if it is too onerous? Rob Carr
Fouad Kronfol commented on "The new Gigiri: Lou Mendez"
Dec 23, 2025
Compare these structures to those in the previous photo showing the Villa Borghese in Paris. The elegant vs. the commonplace !! UNICEF offices have evolved considerably since its founding 80 years ago. What will the future bring???
sree commented on "Off-Road - The Trail Is the Treasure: Detlef Palm"
Dec 23, 2025
Ken, I went back to the photos and there is one where the children are smiling and waving! so let's say they also enjoyed the trips with their parents. r Detlef, you need to respond here. Sree
Rohini De Silva commented on "Important Announcement: News & Views Will Close in March 2026, Unless......."
Dec 22, 2025
Thank you Tom and the editorial team that have worked hard to keep us connected and updated on Unicef/UN activities. Totally understand the time and energy you all have expended and the need to hand over. Unless we have a younger group take over, I like the recommendation that we at least have a Facebook or what’s app group constituted for ongoing information sharing and camaraderie. Perhaps the existing team with the help of computer savvy members can initiate this before you close up in March. Merci!
Dec 22, 2025
Thank you, Interesting story and beautiful video.
Dec 21, 2025
Sree's comment "to take on such an adventure with children" might need a check with the children concerned. Ask them if they were included to ensure that there was enough man-power to push Detlef when he got stuck. . . . .
Sree commented on "Off-Road - The Trail Is the Treasure: Detlef Palm"
Dec 21, 2025
Wow! How exciting and thanks for sharing ! Must say how daring and courageous for you & Gaby to take on such an adventure with children. Congratulations
Sree
Sree
Unknown commented on "UNICEF Offices"
Dec 21, 2025
Thanks Fouad, so many good souvenirs. With regards to the move from Paris to Geneva, it should be added that it was part of a wider UN consolidation. Kurt Waldheim as a SG wanted NY to be the Political centre of the organisation. He wanted Geneva to become the social/humanitarian centre and Vienna to become the economic centre. In these days oil and OPEP were critical for the world economy and Waldheim thought that Vienna had a possible role to play. Waldheim convinced the Swiss authorities to build the Building E in the Geneva Palais des Nations compound. History was quite favourable with the NY and Geneva choices but much less with Vienna. I was fortunate. More than half of the Paris staff refused to move to Geneva. This was my chance when I joined the organisation in July 1975. A wonderful dream that lasted 38 years and that continued with “News and Views”. By the way your resignation (including the resignation of the News and Views Committee” was not granted. You may all apply for study leave for a couple of years.
Umberto CANCELLIERI
Umberto CANCELLIERI
Fouad Kronfol commented on "UNICEF Offices"
Dec 20, 2025
Correction. The Hotel Hoa Binh in Hanoi photo was taken by Leo Goulet in December 1980.
Unknown commented on "UNICEF Offices"
Dec 20, 2025
Good gender balance in Paris!
- Get link
- X
- Other Apps
Labels
Comments
Labels:
Comments
- Get link
- X
- Other Apps
Comments
Post a Comment
If you are a member of XUNICEF, you can comment directly on a post. Or, send your comments to us at xunicef.news.views@gmail.com and we will publish them for you.