17 hours ago
If this is “America First”, it is hard to see who comes second. The ECFR polling suggests that Donald Trump’s return has not checked China’s rise, but accelerated its acceptance.
Trump did not set out to make China great again. But by reducing American foreign policy to raw transactions and threats, he has quietly relieved much of the world of the need to choose sides. If Washington no longer claims to lead a rules-based order, aligning with Beijing starts looking like pragmatism.
The most striking finding is not that China is expected to grow stronger, but that it is no longer widely feared. Across much of the Global South, China is seen as an ally or necessary partner, while the US is viewed as powerful, unpredictable, and increasingly self-absorbed. America matters, but no longer inspires.
Trump has made the US a “normal” great power. In doing so, he has normalised China’s rise. Multipolarity, long cheered by Western intellectuals on the left in particular, is arriving stripped of its illusions: fewer values, fewer loyalties, and far more room for Beijing to operate.
For Europe, the lesson is brutal. This new world does not reward moral posturing or soft power. Either Europe becomes a real power again and learns to act like one, or it will discover that it has become irrelevant in a China-first world.
Trump did not set out to make China great again. But by reducing American foreign policy to raw transactions and threats, he has quietly relieved much of the world of the need to choose sides. If Washington no longer claims to lead a rules-based order, aligning with Beijing starts looking like pragmatism.
The most striking finding is not that China is expected to grow stronger, but that it is no longer widely feared. Across much of the Global South, China is seen as an ally or necessary partner, while the US is viewed as powerful, unpredictable, and increasingly self-absorbed. America matters, but no longer inspires.
Trump has made the US a “normal” great power. In doing so, he has normalised China’s rise. Multipolarity, long cheered by Western intellectuals on the left in particular, is arriving stripped of its illusions: fewer values, fewer loyalties, and far more room for Beijing to operate.
For Europe, the lesson is brutal. This new world does not reward moral posturing or soft power. Either Europe becomes a real power again and learns to act like one, or it will discover that it has become irrelevant in a China-first world.
Unknown commented on "Christmas Letter with Good Wishes for 2026 : Ines and Juan Aguilar"
19 hours ago
Querido Juan, tanto tiempo!!
Deseándote un
Feliz 2026, sigo viviendo en New York.
Este es mi correo:luisbarache@yahoo.com
Deseándote un
Feliz 2026, sigo viviendo en New York.
Este es mi correo:luisbarache@yahoo.com
Luis Barache commented on "Finding Rainbows and Stars - A personal journey (Doreen Lobo)"
19 hours ago
Dear Doreen thanks for sharing.
Unknown commented on "UNICEF Staff Aghast - Playground Turns Political: Detlef Palm"
22 hours ago
Are you sure you want to take the blame for the Sudanese 1990 CPD? You could easily blame others for it.
In Response to a comment by Mahesh
Unknown commented on "UNICEF Staff Aghast - Playground Turns Political: Detlef Palm"
23 hours ago
https://www.threads.com/@jameshoggwriter/post/DTS6mpwCCHa/media?xmt=AQF0kM3SclEtodr71h3_7SYANckIAdnJDTTHQjBa8dG1gU7hn3XLg5rOALJyVqcxBdyJps9p
Mahesh commented on "UNICEF Staff Aghast - Playground Turns Political: Detlef Palm"
Yesterday
Tiny People are People too!
Mahesh
(Author, Sudan CPD 1990)
Mahesh
(Author, Sudan CPD 1990)
Unknown commented on "UNICEF Staff Aghast - Playground Turns Political: Detlef Palm"
Yesterday
Lego have defensive importance - toss truckloads of them at all border points and see how much foot soldiers yelp / as those sharp corners bruise their tender feet
Unknown commented on "UNICEF Staff Aghast - Playground Turns Political: Detlef Palm"
Yesterday
Greetings to Elders and Youngsters , from Groenland tot Zeeland, from Zierikzee tot New Zeeland, thanks to everyone for your practical historical support. When I was three, the milkman’s cart, pulled by one huge ol’ n tired horse, delivered three times a week UNICEF milk, not as tasty as the cow’s milk of the three other days.
But, moeke claimed, drink it now, cuz tomorrow UNICEF shall not be there no more. That was , alas, with maternal disregard for the pater familias’ wisdom who insisted « nay, UNICEF shall exist as long as man is not espousing peace . « [ my dear father fought in the Battle of the Bulge, in the Ardennes, in late 1944, alongside my American Dad from Minnesota. They never met. ]
Ludo
[ three decades later, he was rather disappointed that I started with UNICEF. My mother quietly disagreed, and told him, « don’t worry papa, your son just walked from Harper to Grand Bereby ; I’m proud of him. « ] [ I’m not sure they ever talked again about peace ☮️ and love 💕. ]
But, moeke claimed, drink it now, cuz tomorrow UNICEF shall not be there no more. That was , alas, with maternal disregard for the pater familias’ wisdom who insisted « nay, UNICEF shall exist as long as man is not espousing peace . « [ my dear father fought in the Battle of the Bulge, in the Ardennes, in late 1944, alongside my American Dad from Minnesota. They never met. ]
Ludo
[ three decades later, he was rather disappointed that I started with UNICEF. My mother quietly disagreed, and told him, « don’t worry papa, your son just walked from Harper to Grand Bereby ; I’m proud of him. « ] [ I’m not sure they ever talked again about peace ☮️ and love 💕. ]
John Gilmartin commented on "Controversial US study on hepatitis B vaccines in Africa is cancelled"
2 days ago
Here’s a copy of the “preprint” report on a related vaccine study. This one also involves vaccines that have been in use for many decades. This may also come out in something like the Guardian as proving something or claiming something negative about vaccine use. Randomized Clinical Trials of the type in use today were generally not used (actually not invented yet) for the first field reviews of the vaccines mentioned. These vaccines predated the RCT style of testing. Preprints are not peer reviewed before publication, which is also still controversial.
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.64898/2025.12.31.25343212v1
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.64898/2025.12.31.25343212v1
John Gilmartin commented on "Controversial US study on hepatitis B vaccines in Africa is cancelled"
2 days ago
The study is back on. Again, I would treat anything about this story as controversial
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-controversial-u-s-study-of-hepatitis-b-vaccines-will-continue-in-africa/
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-controversial-u-s-study-of-hepatitis-b-vaccines-will-continue-in-africa/
John Gilmartin commented on "Controversial US study on hepatitis B vaccines in Africa is cancelled"
2 days ago
I went to the Guardian and below copied the complete item they published, its a bit different.
I have a few comments;
Perhaps most important, this article is leaping into an already blazing bonfire of outrage in the US public health community. I would be careful about xunicef publishing any thing on this as it’s now a battle between the RFK administration and the most highly respected public health voices in the US. Paul Offit being chief among these.
My opinions. First I’m a former supply guy who bought a lot of vaccines and sat in a too many WHO meetings with well qualified epidemiologists and immunologists. My opinions have no credibility with the voices being quoted here.
Nevertheless, first it is not unusual for a study protocol to be stopped before the study in the field begins. Clinical trials on humans are required to have a variety of expert review panels, each of then comment on the study design before the field trial begins. I sat on one of these panels for a trial in the Gambia many years ago, for a then new vaccine called HiB (Haemophilous Influenza type B). The ethical review panel will have distinguished clinical and lab experts as well as full time ethicists who guide the group in the tricky questions about what is or isn’t ethical in field trials. These discussions can get heated. Not because someone is unethical, but because sometimes what is the ethical lapse is difficult to see or misunderstood. It appears in this proposed trial someone had not addressed the issue of the control group not receiving a later immunization after the trial period ends.There is no discussion here of the trials duration, will the immunized babies be followed up for six months? One year or two years? I doubt that they willl be followed up for longer than that time frame. However, Hepatitis the disease, is one of those that usually doesn’t present until much later, ie. Middle age in the USA population. This question of when to end the followup period in the study is a big one, it involves usually a lot of the study’s budget, and the desire by the study sponsors to come to a conclusion and publish the results. It also involves logistics and credibility of the study. The longer the study must follow up with the two groups, the active and the control, the more each test group will shrink, So, in this case, each group starts off as 7,000 newborns. If after the passage of a year, that same group becomes only 4,000 returning infants for followup blood work and interviews with the mother, that loss of subjects starts to influence the credibility of the study results. If the last followup is in two years, the test populations may be very dispersed and then the data will become less credible. There is also the issue of finding the folks in the test and paying the staff and testing costs for this follow-up. In the pharmaceutical world, this part of what are called phase three studies is the most expensive and difficult to complete. Ministries of Public Health are at a disadvantage on these followup rounds due to lack of funding and marketing skills. $1.6 million budget for a field study this large in Africa is a very small budget.
The article mentions this product as an attenuated vaccine. Hep B is not an attenuated vaccine, it is a viral sub unit type of vaccine. At the time of its introduction, it was the first commercially used subunit type of vaccine. In terms of the vaccine's stafety profile, this is a big difference. An attenuated vaccine is a weak form of a live virus. The Measles Rubella and Mumps combination vaccine is an example of an attenuated live virus vaccine. A weakened/ attenuated form of measles is used to immunize the child. It is still a form of Measle virus, and is still “live”, but the great advance of the MMR attenuated vaccines was that they would not induce the full blown measles disease.
(Comment truncated due its length)
I have a few comments;
Perhaps most important, this article is leaping into an already blazing bonfire of outrage in the US public health community. I would be careful about xunicef publishing any thing on this as it’s now a battle between the RFK administration and the most highly respected public health voices in the US. Paul Offit being chief among these.
My opinions. First I’m a former supply guy who bought a lot of vaccines and sat in a too many WHO meetings with well qualified epidemiologists and immunologists. My opinions have no credibility with the voices being quoted here.
Nevertheless, first it is not unusual for a study protocol to be stopped before the study in the field begins. Clinical trials on humans are required to have a variety of expert review panels, each of then comment on the study design before the field trial begins. I sat on one of these panels for a trial in the Gambia many years ago, for a then new vaccine called HiB (Haemophilous Influenza type B). The ethical review panel will have distinguished clinical and lab experts as well as full time ethicists who guide the group in the tricky questions about what is or isn’t ethical in field trials. These discussions can get heated. Not because someone is unethical, but because sometimes what is the ethical lapse is difficult to see or misunderstood. It appears in this proposed trial someone had not addressed the issue of the control group not receiving a later immunization after the trial period ends.There is no discussion here of the trials duration, will the immunized babies be followed up for six months? One year or two years? I doubt that they willl be followed up for longer than that time frame. However, Hepatitis the disease, is one of those that usually doesn’t present until much later, ie. Middle age in the USA population. This question of when to end the followup period in the study is a big one, it involves usually a lot of the study’s budget, and the desire by the study sponsors to come to a conclusion and publish the results. It also involves logistics and credibility of the study. The longer the study must follow up with the two groups, the active and the control, the more each test group will shrink, So, in this case, each group starts off as 7,000 newborns. If after the passage of a year, that same group becomes only 4,000 returning infants for followup blood work and interviews with the mother, that loss of subjects starts to influence the credibility of the study results. If the last followup is in two years, the test populations may be very dispersed and then the data will become less credible. There is also the issue of finding the folks in the test and paying the staff and testing costs for this follow-up. In the pharmaceutical world, this part of what are called phase three studies is the most expensive and difficult to complete. Ministries of Public Health are at a disadvantage on these followup rounds due to lack of funding and marketing skills. $1.6 million budget for a field study this large in Africa is a very small budget.
The article mentions this product as an attenuated vaccine. Hep B is not an attenuated vaccine, it is a viral sub unit type of vaccine. At the time of its introduction, it was the first commercially used subunit type of vaccine. In terms of the vaccine's stafety profile, this is a big difference. An attenuated vaccine is a weak form of a live virus. The Measles Rubella and Mumps combination vaccine is an example of an attenuated live virus vaccine. A weakened/ attenuated form of measles is used to immunize the child. It is still a form of Measle virus, and is still “live”, but the great advance of the MMR attenuated vaccines was that they would not induce the full blown measles disease.
(Comment truncated due its length)
John Gilmartin commented on "Controversial US study on hepatitis B vaccines in Africa is cancelled"
2 days ago
(Continuation of comment)
I believe the Hepatitis B vaccine was the first virus vaccine that was not attenuated, but was instead a sub component of the hepatitis b virus. Maurice Hilleman and his team developed this design and shepherded it through the FDA and many other national control authorities. It was a revolutionary new type of vaccine in 1977 when it was first used. I know about this because I happened to work with Hillelman's group as it was going though the production of the first standard batches of the then new HBV vaccine. There’s a good explanation of this product and Maurice’s work in Wikipedia.
For info, the Covid vaccine by Pfizer and Moderna were the next big evolution in virus vaccine design, these focused on one key element of the covid virus, the so called ’spike protein.’ So this was the most targeted viral vaccine type developed to date.
Back to the trial that’s being held up in Guinea Bissau, first, Hep B vaccine as it’s called has been in broad use in Africa, Asia, Europe and the americas for decades now. When I finished at unicef we had managed to get the price of the vaccine down to 25 cents a dose. I remain a vaccine buyer at heart. The key to making vaccination ‘work’ for unicef and our partners was having good vaccines available in large quantities at prices our programs could afford. All the way back in the 1990’s when we began talking with manufacturers and the WHO about introducing Hep B vaccine, the key issue was the price. In the 1970’s it was launched in the USA for $50 dollars a dose. I still remember meetings with groups of manufacturers and explaining that we could only afford a 25 cent HBV. Af first there were howls of derision and laughter, that we in unicef were nuts, and that we would never see the day of that vaccine at those kinds of prices. It took a while, but the early 2000’s we began to have 25 cent HBV from high quality large suppliers. One of the marvelous parts of the Unicef/WHO HBV introduction was there were never serious side reactions. That’s the key to the so-called sub unit design, the vaccine did not contain other proteins or preservatives that caused side effects.
Finally, how did we handle stories like this in the media? We, unicef, had an excellent ongoing relationship with the WHO vaccine/biological quality team in Geneva. This small group in Geneva was in turn also in strong relationship with the best national control laboratories in the world. Basically, Unicef’s policy was not to comment on technical or quality concerns from the media; we would refer them on the record to the correct counterpart in WHO. This team would then respond, generally with the support of a national control lab like the MRC in England, on all the quality and technical issues. When needed we would send joint teams to investigate a serious claim.
Updating a field trial protocol before the study begins is not unusual and in the US there is a public website and database where any one can locate any human trial that is in proposal form, or any study that is underway, and most of the recent studies that are completed. It is very transparent. That showed be the case here. As the protocol is modified the research team is required to explain what changes were proposed, whether they were approved and then the current status of the study. I’d expect this study will have a similar public availability.
Hope this helps, thanks, John
I believe the Hepatitis B vaccine was the first virus vaccine that was not attenuated, but was instead a sub component of the hepatitis b virus. Maurice Hilleman and his team developed this design and shepherded it through the FDA and many other national control authorities. It was a revolutionary new type of vaccine in 1977 when it was first used. I know about this because I happened to work with Hillelman's group as it was going though the production of the first standard batches of the then new HBV vaccine. There’s a good explanation of this product and Maurice’s work in Wikipedia.
For info, the Covid vaccine by Pfizer and Moderna were the next big evolution in virus vaccine design, these focused on one key element of the covid virus, the so called ’spike protein.’ So this was the most targeted viral vaccine type developed to date.
Back to the trial that’s being held up in Guinea Bissau, first, Hep B vaccine as it’s called has been in broad use in Africa, Asia, Europe and the americas for decades now. When I finished at unicef we had managed to get the price of the vaccine down to 25 cents a dose. I remain a vaccine buyer at heart. The key to making vaccination ‘work’ for unicef and our partners was having good vaccines available in large quantities at prices our programs could afford. All the way back in the 1990’s when we began talking with manufacturers and the WHO about introducing Hep B vaccine, the key issue was the price. In the 1970’s it was launched in the USA for $50 dollars a dose. I still remember meetings with groups of manufacturers and explaining that we could only afford a 25 cent HBV. Af first there were howls of derision and laughter, that we in unicef were nuts, and that we would never see the day of that vaccine at those kinds of prices. It took a while, but the early 2000’s we began to have 25 cent HBV from high quality large suppliers. One of the marvelous parts of the Unicef/WHO HBV introduction was there were never serious side reactions. That’s the key to the so-called sub unit design, the vaccine did not contain other proteins or preservatives that caused side effects.
Finally, how did we handle stories like this in the media? We, unicef, had an excellent ongoing relationship with the WHO vaccine/biological quality team in Geneva. This small group in Geneva was in turn also in strong relationship with the best national control laboratories in the world. Basically, Unicef’s policy was not to comment on technical or quality concerns from the media; we would refer them on the record to the correct counterpart in WHO. This team would then respond, generally with the support of a national control lab like the MRC in England, on all the quality and technical issues. When needed we would send joint teams to investigate a serious claim.
Updating a field trial protocol before the study begins is not unusual and in the US there is a public website and database where any one can locate any human trial that is in proposal form, or any study that is underway, and most of the recent studies that are completed. It is very transparent. That showed be the case here. As the protocol is modified the research team is required to explain what changes were proposed, whether they were approved and then the current status of the study. I’d expect this study will have a similar public availability.
Hope this helps, thanks, John
2 days ago
As a former UNICEF insider, I can confirm that Legoland has long been classified as a “strategic humanitarian asset."
The real concern, of course, is precedent. If Legoland falls, what is to stop hostile actors from targeting IKEA, Kinder Surprise eggs, or, God forbid, the last remaining UNICEF tote bags? At that point, multilateralism truly collapses.
The rationing of Duplo bricks is especially troubling. Duplo is not a toy; it is a coping mechanism. Remove it, and staff may be forced to confront PowerPoint presentations unaided.
One can only hope the Executive Board shows the same legendary decisiveness on Legoland as it does on CPDs: full consensus, no objections, and absolutely no measurable impact, except on morale.
Pu-Pri-Pa Division forever.
The real concern, of course, is precedent. If Legoland falls, what is to stop hostile actors from targeting IKEA, Kinder Surprise eggs, or, God forbid, the last remaining UNICEF tote bags? At that point, multilateralism truly collapses.
The rationing of Duplo bricks is especially troubling. Duplo is not a toy; it is a coping mechanism. Remove it, and staff may be forced to confront PowerPoint presentations unaided.
One can only hope the Executive Board shows the same legendary decisiveness on Legoland as it does on CPDs: full consensus, no objections, and absolutely no measurable impact, except on morale.
Pu-Pri-Pa Division forever.
Unknown commented on "UNICEF Staff Aghast - Playground Turns Political: Detlef Palm"
2 days ago
I like the Pu-Pri-Pa Division
2 days ago
According to Google, the US already has 3 major Legolands and 14 Legoland Discovery Centers. But clearly 14 is not enough. US National security depends on owning those outside US borders as well. Meanwhile, the Trump Administration is deploying investigators and ICE units to check what really goes on at Lego's US locations, as well as verifying the immigration status of those tiny people who visit.
Jan 15, 2026
Hi .. Thank you for this announcement .. I love it .. :) I am 80y young .. retired ??years ( but who is counting ).. just to say it doesn't mean that I can't open PDF and I know what "Zoom" means for sure.. .. This an amazing group .. keeping us connected and in the know .. Thank you .
Jan 15, 2026
Thanks Detlef, for the interest and the question. This one will be more comfortable to answer once I actually step aside! Give me another 6 months ;-)
In Response to a comment by Detlef Palm
Jan 15, 2026
Thanks Rob, for the reaction. There are as many exit stories as there are people who left the development/humanitarian sector. There is for sure a category of people who were ‘glad it’s over’ and their stories are worth listening to as well. There is no judgment implied in our project. ‘Just enjoying life’ is as valid an ambition as any other.
In Response to a comment by Unknown
Jan 15, 2026
Thanks for your reflections dear Thomas. There is a lot to be said about the aid ‘industry’ and everything that is wrong with it, but that’s not the book we are writing at the moment. Our book aims to document the stories of those who left the development/humanitarian sector, either voluntarily or involuntarily, and their journeys to find new purpose. How they found new ways to channel energy, passion and expertise, all towards personal and professional fulfillment. From initial conversations, we are clear that there is a category of people who left because of increasing misgivings about the aid ‘industry’. Question remains - how did they fare after their exit? We are genuinely interested and know there are many stories out there that are worth telling. Warm regards! Arthur.
In Response to a comment by Thomas Ekvall
Jan 14, 2026
Multilateralism is here, or should that more appropriately be called Multipolarity?
For decades, many Western thinkers, particularly on the political left, have advocated for multipolarity, a shift in global power away from the West toward a more balanced constellation of powers. Today, that world has arrived. Though its consequences may prove less of a triumph of the political left than a harvest of ignorance, naivety and introspection.
In the optimistic textbooks of the early post-Cold War era, the West was envisioned as shepherding a rules-based order rooted in liberal norms, free trade, and human rights. That unipolarity was more naive than ideological.
For many on the progressive left and their isolationist counterparts on the right, this overreach was the problem. Progressives blamed Western supremacy on colonial legacies and structural inequities; isolationists saw little reason to care about conflicts far from their shores. In both camps, the notion that the West should cede ground, whether for moral redemption or domestic tranquillity, took root.
The unintended consequence is that both movements have unknowingly become allies to hostile powers that seek the eclipse of Western influence.
What is striking about this is its source, ideological self-critique at home, has external costs abroad. A civilisation denouncing its own history and downplaying its strategic interests becomes a civilisation in retreat.
Western retrenchment coinciding with Eastern ascendancy is no coincidence. Where the left in the West demand accountability for past sins, rivals interpret weakness; where leaders call for disengagement, adversaries see opportunity. The result is a new landscape that is multipolar by default, shaped by Western detachment and weakness.
The multipolar world that many insisted was inevitable has indeed arrived, but it looks rather different from the one its proponents imagined. It is a world where only power matters, and where the West in general and Europe in particular finds itself defending the very principles it took for granted. That is a historical irony worthy of reflection.
For decades, many Western thinkers, particularly on the political left, have advocated for multipolarity, a shift in global power away from the West toward a more balanced constellation of powers. Today, that world has arrived. Though its consequences may prove less of a triumph of the political left than a harvest of ignorance, naivety and introspection.
In the optimistic textbooks of the early post-Cold War era, the West was envisioned as shepherding a rules-based order rooted in liberal norms, free trade, and human rights. That unipolarity was more naive than ideological.
For many on the progressive left and their isolationist counterparts on the right, this overreach was the problem. Progressives blamed Western supremacy on colonial legacies and structural inequities; isolationists saw little reason to care about conflicts far from their shores. In both camps, the notion that the West should cede ground, whether for moral redemption or domestic tranquillity, took root.
The unintended consequence is that both movements have unknowingly become allies to hostile powers that seek the eclipse of Western influence.
What is striking about this is its source, ideological self-critique at home, has external costs abroad. A civilisation denouncing its own history and downplaying its strategic interests becomes a civilisation in retreat.
Western retrenchment coinciding with Eastern ascendancy is no coincidence. Where the left in the West demand accountability for past sins, rivals interpret weakness; where leaders call for disengagement, adversaries see opportunity. The result is a new landscape that is multipolar by default, shaped by Western detachment and weakness.
The multipolar world that many insisted was inevitable has indeed arrived, but it looks rather different from the one its proponents imagined. It is a world where only power matters, and where the West in general and Europe in particular finds itself defending the very principles it took for granted. That is a historical irony worthy of reflection.
Jan 13, 2026
I agree - there are dozens of UN "things" that suck up funds and deliver very little for it. I will go out on a limb and say the UN Resident Coordinator System - which collects a 1 % "coordination levy" on EACH GRANT that EACH UN agency gets from donors - to the tune of a few 100 million USD each year. There is no bigger waste of funds for.a clown show that just creates more work for UN agencies on the ground - and is a solution looking for a problem that exists in their own minds using our pockets to fix it. Make UN coordination a rotating responsibility of UN agencies and provide a lean and task bound secretariat for that. By the way - with Microsoft Team - notes are taken at meetings automatically - so that task of the Secretariat is now gone. Easy peasy.
In Response to a comment by Thomas Ekvall
Jan 12, 2026
@Richard. According to my AI, PAHO is the regional office for the Americas of the World Health Organization (WHO) but is legally a separate entity with its own constitution and membership rules. Even though the U.S. has initiated steps to withdraw from the WHO itself (scheduled for 22 January), it has not given any formal notice to leave PAHO, and remains a participating member of that regional health agency.
So the U.S. remains a PAHO member. But I am not sure that Trump or his administration are as smart as my AI.
So the U.S. remains a PAHO member. But I am not sure that Trump or his administration are as smart as my AI.
In Response to a comment by RICHARD BRIDLE
RICHARD BRIDLE commented on "List of International Organizations from which the US Will Withdraw"
Jan 11, 2026
Does anyone know if the USA has retained membership of PAHO?
Liz Gibbons commented on "WINDOW PEEKING (by Myra Rudin)"
Jan 11, 2026
These are fantastic photos that beautifully capture spontaneous moments at the border between inside and outside. I feel inspired to look more into the windows I pass.
yaya commented on "WINDOW PEEKING (by Myra Rudin)"
Jan 11, 2026
These are superb photos, Myra. Intimate, inspiring, framed with the delicate textures of life. Please keep looking and recording.
Jan 11, 2026
To frame this episode as either dissent crushed by authoritarianism or capitulation to a lobby is too shallow. Harvard’s problem is not that it suddenly lost its nerve. It is that, like many elite institutions, it has spent the past decade substituting moral signalling for governance, activism for stewardship, and rhetoric for institutional clarity. When politics eventually arrived at the door, the house was already structurally unsound.
Universities cannot credibly claim to be neutral arenas of inquiry while simultaneously allowing centres, programmes and leaders to align themselves visibly with contested political causes, however sincerely held. Once that line is crossed, accusations of bias, capture or exclusion are inevitable. Institutions that have failed to articulate limits, standards and due process in advance often respond clumsily under pressure.
The deeper responsibility lies with the mainstream political and cultural leadership that has governed the West over the past decades. By outsourcing difficult questions to slogans, tolerating the erosion of institutional boundaries, and mistaking virtue displays for competence, they have made universities and much else fragile. The result is a cycle of overreach followed by overcorrection, in which everyone claims victimhood and no one accepts responsibility. We did not arrive here by conspiracy. We arrived here by misrule.
Universities cannot credibly claim to be neutral arenas of inquiry while simultaneously allowing centres, programmes and leaders to align themselves visibly with contested political causes, however sincerely held. Once that line is crossed, accusations of bias, capture or exclusion are inevitable. Institutions that have failed to articulate limits, standards and due process in advance often respond clumsily under pressure.
The deeper responsibility lies with the mainstream political and cultural leadership that has governed the West over the past decades. By outsourcing difficult questions to slogans, tolerating the erosion of institutional boundaries, and mistaking virtue displays for competence, they have made universities and much else fragile. The result is a cycle of overreach followed by overcorrection, in which everyone claims victimhood and no one accepts responsibility. We did not arrive here by conspiracy. We arrived here by misrule.
In Response to a comment by Bazin Rushton
Jan 11, 2026
What have we done wrong ? How can we protect education and our children?
Bazin Rushton commented on "Out of My Way, UN !! : Robert Cohen"
Jan 11, 2026
Make all of us sick
Unknown commented on "WINDOW PEEKING (by Myra Rudin)"
Jan 10, 2026
Wonderful photos Myra. I need to start walking the streets more with or without a camera. Very inspiring! Bill Hetzer
Unknown commented on "Mini-reunion in Miami - Fabrizio and Bilge Bassani meet Fouad and Nadia Kronfol"
Jan 10, 2026
Thanks
In Response to a comment by Unknown
Jan 10, 2026
Forgetting the huge downward spiral in the value of US provided funds, I am intrigued that the US requires their 'contribution' to have to be routed through OCHA. Presumably this means that OCHA will take its slice of the whole pie before what is left is routed through each of the specialised agencies like UNICEF, who will need to take a 'normal' percentage. This is double-entry economics and begs the question as to whether the US President will benefit when he is self-elected to be a Trustee of OCHA ?
Unknown commented on "Two Things Which are not True - Venezuela by Nury Vittachi : Shared by Kul Gautam"
Jan 10, 2026
I miss Tarzie as well too! What a wonderful character! Pauline (O'Dea Knutsson(
In Response to a comment by Sam Koo
Ken Gibbs commented on "WINDOW PEEKING (by Myra Rudin)"
Jan 10, 2026
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ken Gibbs commented on "WINDOW PEEKING (by Myra Rudin)"
Jan 10, 2026
How the innocence of youth shines out with their beautiful smiles. Pure magic.
Unknown commented on "Mini-reunion in Miami - Fabrizio and Bilge Bassani meet Fouad and Nadia Kronfol"
Jan 10, 2026
Sempre belli! Le belle persone rimangono belle!
Umberto C.
Umberto C.
Maie Ayoub von Kohl commented on "Out of My Way, UN !! : Robert Cohen"
Jan 10, 2026
It hurts!
Maie Ayoub von Kohl commented on "WINDOW PEEKING (by Myra Rudin)"
Jan 10, 2026
100%! Thank you Myra.
In Response to a comment by Gautam Banerji
Unknown commented on "WINDOW PEEKING (by Myra Rudin)"
Jan 10, 2026
It’s amazing how much I derive pleasure looking at those pictures Myra thk you so much : going around the world without traveling !! Have a happy successful new year : Liliane
Ken Gibbs commented on "WatSan pre-training - Final: Ken Gibbs"
Jan 10, 2026
Nobody has been treated the same was as I was ?
- 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.