United Nations

United Nations refugee agency says forced displacement likely to increase as US and Israel continue deadly strikes across Iran.

More than three million people have been displaced in Iran since the United States and Israel launched a war against the country late last month, the United Nations says, as concerns mount over a worsening humanitarian crisis.

The UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) said on Thursday that as many as 3.2 million people – representing between 600,000 and one million Iranian households – have been forcibly displaced since the war began on February 28.

“Most of them are reportedly fleeing from Tehran and other major urban areas towards the north of the country and rural areas to seek safety,” UNHCR official Ayaki Ito said in a statement.

“This figure is likely to continue rising as hostilities persist, marking a worrying escalation in humanitarian needs.”

The US and Israeli militaries have continued to bombard Iran despite mounting international condemnation and calls for de-escalation.

More than 1,300 people have been killed in US-Israeli attacks across the country to date, according to the latest figures from Iranian officials.

While the US and Israel have said they are targeting Iranian leaders as well as military and nuclear infrastructure, Iran says thousands of civilian sites, such as schools and hospitals, have been attacked.

Iran’s Deputy Health Minister Ali Jafarian told Al Jazeera on Thursday that medical teams have been responding to a growing number of casualties as strikes on urban areas have intensified in recent days.

“Most of these people are civilians,” Jafarian said, adding that more than 30 hospitals and health facilities have been damaged due to the attacks.

On Thursday, explosions were heard in several parts of the capital, Tehran, and other Iranian cities as the strikes continued.

Al Jazeera’s Tohid Asadi said rescuers were digging through mounds of rubble as several multistorey apartment buildings were heavily damaged in recent attacks on a hard-hit eastern neighbourhood of Tehran.

“We saw bodies taken out [of the rubble] … and the situation was far beyond what I can call disastrous,” Asadi said.

Iran has responded to the US-Israeli assault by launching a barrage of missiles and drones at US bases and other sites in countries across the wider Middle East region.

It has also shut down the Strait of Hormuz, a critical Gulf waterway through which about one-fifth of the world’s oil transits, raising serious concerns of disruptions to global energy supplies.

The UN Security Council has passed a resolution put forward by Gulf Cooperation Council members calling on Iran to halt its attacks on Gulf countries. The measure was adopted with 13 votes in favour and two abstentions, while no member states voted against it.

US First Lady Melania Trump has presided over a UN Security Council meeting focusing on children in conflict days after dozens of children at a school in Iran were reportedly killed after Israel and the United States launched attacks.

The US Ambassador to the United Nations Mike Waltz says striking Iran was necessary to protect American allies, prevent proxy militias, and to ensure that Tehran can never “threaten the world with a nuclear weapon.”

Iranian Ambassador to the United Nations, Amir-Saeid Iravani denounced US-Israeli military strikes across the country, decrying the deaths and injuries of hundreds of civilians as a war crime.

United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres is calling for “genuine dialogue and negotiations” after the US and Israel launched massive military strikes across Iran, calling the attacks a grave threat to “international peace and security.”

Development agendas borrow a term common in the study of global governance that is shaped not only by policy, but also by the decision-making structures that determine who speaks, who is heard, and who ultimately adapts. In the contemporary multilateral landscape, the tendency of weaker actors to align their positions with dominant powers for the sake of security or accessibility has evolved beyond its classical definition in realist theory. It now operates as a subtle but consequential social mechanism, systematically reducing the diplomatic boldness of the Global South countries in international forums.

The bandwagon effect is not just a phenomenon of individual behavior, but a reflection of an institutionalized architecture of structural inequality. Under these conditions, the countries of the Global South often hide their authentic preferences. Not because of argumentative incompetence, but rather because of the incentives created by financial dependence, representation asymmetry, and limited diplomatic capacity. The consequence is a direct contradiction to Sustainable Development Goal 16, which mandates the building of strong, accountable, and inclusive institutions at all levels.

The Bandwagon Effect in the Context of Global Governance

From a realist perspective, countries that have identical votes in UNGA resolutions reflect similar preferences within the framework of the protection of sovereign norms. But empirical research shows a more complex reality. Khan’s (2020) study of Bangladesh’s voting patterns at the UNGA for the period 2001–2017 revealed that vote alignment does not always reflect the proximity of substantive preferences, but is often a product of geopolitical contexts and dependency relationships. Realists themselves recognize that this kind of voice alignment tends to collapse in crisis situations when countries are encouraged to self-help that makes it clear that a seemingly consensus-like may never really exist.

More direct evidence comes from a panel of 123 developing countries in a study of U.S. economic sanctions and UNGA voting patterns for the 1990–2014 period. The study, which limited its analysis to non-OECD countries because foreign aid was not considered to affect the voting behavior of rich countries, confirmed that external pressures, both in the form of incentives and sanctions, significantly shaped developing countries’ voting preferences on important issues. It further states that receive budget support and unconditional assistance from the US tend to vote in line with US interests. A correlation that is difficult to explain solely by the similarity of values.

This pattern was also identified structurally through the analysis of the UNGA voting network. Magu and Mateos (2017) found that the empirical distribution of voting similarity scores is right-skewed towards a value of 1, which means that clusters of countries with a high degree of alignment are much more common than can be explained by pure similarity of interest. This is consistent with the hypothesis that structurally weak states tend to move toward dominant power positions, not because of belief, but because of survival calculations.

The Inequality Architecture That Creates Bandwagon Incentives

Understanding why the bandwagon effect is so entrenched among the Global South requires a reading of the existing global governance architecture. At the International Monetary Fund, the United States holds 16.9 percent of the vote and has an effective veto since major decisions require an 85 percent majority. Meanwhile, Africa, which consists of 54 member states and accounts for most of the IMF’s 2026 active loan portfolio, only controls about 6.5 percent of the vote. On the UN Security Council, not a single African country holds a permanent seat, although more than 60 percent of the Council’s agenda is related to conflicts on the continent.

This representational inequality creates the conditions in which joining a majority position or with a certain power bloc becomes an administratively rational strategy, even when it is contrary to the long-term interests of a country.

The factor of dependence on military suppliers is also relevant. A study of the determinants of developing countries’ voting at the UNGA identified that the choice of military suppliers that placed countries in the orbit of Western, Russian, or Chinese influence also influenced voting tendencies. This provides important context for India’s abstaining position in the UNGA resolution condemning Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, which is an inseparable decision from the fact that about 70 percent of India’s military equipment comes from Russia. This is not a moral inconsistency but rather a rationality imposed by the architecture of dependence.

Contradictions with SDGs 16: Measuring What Is Not Measurable

Sustainable Development Goal 16 mandates the development of institutions that are ‘peaceful, equitable, and inclusive at all levels’ is a mandate that explicitly encompasses global, not just domestic, governance. The SDG 16 Global Progress Report (UNDP/UNODC/OHCHR, 2023) describes an alarming situation where progress towards SDG 16 is very slow and in some cases even moving in the wrong direction. Violence is on the rise, inequality is hampering inclusive decision-making, and corruption is undermining the social contract.

On a broader level, the Sustainable Development Report 2024 (SDSN), which covers all 193 UN member states, found that on average only 16 percent of the SDG targets are on track to be achieved by 2030. SDG 16 is specifically mentioned as one of the goals that are furthest from the target. More significantly, among the five SDG targets that showed the most regression since 2015, press freedom, which is an indicator under SDG 16, is also included.

The connection between the bandwagon effect and the setback of SDG 16 is not just correlative. It is mechanistic. When countries are unable to express their authentic preferences in the multilateral negotiation process due to structural pressures, the three key pillars of SDG 16 inclusivity, accountability, and effectiveness are degraded simultaneously. Inclusivity is degraded as voices that are supposed to represent the global majority are eroded into a consensus designed by and for minorities. Accountability is degraded because countries that choose to go against the interests of their people in order to maintain relations with donors or trading partners cannot be held coherently accountable by their constituents. Effectiveness is degraded because resolutions born of pseudo-consensus will never be implemented with sincere commitment.

The Bandwagon Effect as a Social Phenomenon, Not an Individual Failure

It is important to emphasize that the bandwagon effect in this context is not a failure of diplomatic character or moral inconsistency. It is a rational response to unequal structural incentives. A quantitative analysis of UNGA voting in the period 1946–2014 shows that the voting patterns of developing countries consistently shifted to the dominant power configuration in that period not because of the convergence of values, but because of changes in the distribution of power and dependency.

This makes the bandwagon effect a social phenomenon in the strictest sense. It is not behavior that is freely chosen by individuals or states, but behavior that is conditioned by the structure of the system. As the literature on public voting behavior and foreign policy shows, public opinion and domestic pressures do influence foreign policy but in countries with low state capacity, external factors such as aid dependence and pressure from international financial institutions are often more decisive.

The consequences of this framing are very important in policy. The solution is not moral persuasion, but in the transformation of structural incentives. The countries of the Global South do not need to be educated to be braver, they just need to be given conditions where diplomatic courage does not mean financial suicide or geopolitical isolation.

Implications and Directions of Reform

If the bandwagon effect is understood as a product of the architecture of inequality, then meaningful reform must target that architecture. First, reform of representation in the Bretton Woods institutions remains a prerequisite that cannot be postponed. As long as the quota formula remains biased towards advanced economies and as long as the U.S. retains its veto, the structural incentives for the bandwagon will continue to exist. The SDSN Sustainable Development Report 2024 itself identifies strengthening UN-based multilateralism as one of the urgent needs of a recommendation that presupposes a more equitable representation architecture reform.

Second, transparency in the multilateral negotiation process must be expanded. If negotiating positions could be monitored more openly by civil society and the media, the space between publicly stated positions and actual behavior at the negotiating table would become narrower. This is especially relevant for the negotiation process in international financial institutions that have been operating with a high level of secrecy.

Third, strengthening a substantive south-south coalition that should go beyond solidarity rhetoric can also provide a buffer against external pressure. But this requires that the countries of the Global South build real policy coordination mechanisms in multilateral forums, not just in bilateral meetings. Without this kind of mechanism, Global South solidarity will continue to be an aspiration that is defeated by the calculation of bilateral dependency in critical moments.

Conclusion

The bandwagon effect in global governance is a manifestation of institutionalized inequality. It works discreetly, through incentives and dependencies, to produce consensuses that look strong on the outside but fragile on the inside. SDG 16 which mandates inclusive, accountable, and effective institutions cannot be realized as long as the global decision-making mechanisms themselves continue to produce conditions that encourage countries to hide their true preferences.

As UNDP affirms in its latest SDG 16 progress report, peace and prosperity for all people and the planet is only possible with decisive and innovative action on SDG 16. Such actions cannot be limited to the domestic realm alone, they must include a fundamental transformation in the global governance architecture that currently systematically penalizes diplomatic courage and incentivizes compliance.

Effective global governance is not built on consensus imposed by dependencies. It is built on genuine participation and genuine participation requires conditions in which authentic choices are not punished by structures that are supposed to serve all.

US President Trump’s announcement of the creation of the so-called “Peace Council,” involving several countries, including Morocco, sparks a deep debate that goes beyond the diplomatic event itself. It addresses the core of the international order established after World War II. The issue isn’t only about establishing a new international body but also raises an implicit question: Is the United Nations still capable of managing global peace and security, or are we entering a phase in which alternatives are being sought?

From this perspective, the Peace Council becomes a political project par excellence, reflecting shifts in the American vision of the role of international institutions and revealing a structural crisis within the United Nations system.

First: The Peace Council… Read for the idea, not the structure.

Internationally and institutionally, the Peace Council cannot be considered a direct alternative to the United Nations. The latter is grounded in an international charter, legal legitimacy, and semi-inclusive membership, whereas the Peace Council remains a selective framework, initially limited in membership, and its legitimacy is based, in particular, on the political will of the countries involved, foremost among them the United States. However, attention to this formal aspect may overlook the substance of the matter. The true value of the Peace Council lies not in its organizational and administrative structure, but in the political message it carries: explicitly questioning the United Nations’ ability to perform its historical function, offering an alternative grounded in effectiveness rather than consensus, and prioritizing alliance over inclusiveness. In other words, we are facing a shift in how international peace is managed, not just a new institutional addition.

Second: Why does the US administration believe that the United Nations has failed? Washington’s view is rooted in the strong belief that the United Nations has faced significant challenges: it has become hostage to the veto powers within the Security Council; it struggles to enforce its strategic decisions in major international conflicts; and it has shifted from being a mechanism for resolution to more of a platform for political battles. This perspective is not merely popular opinion; it is shared by many international relations scholars, who argue that the UN has not evolved sufficiently to address emerging global and regional issues, including unconventional conflicts, the rise of non-state actors, shifting global power dynamics, and a waning collective commitment to international law. In this context, the Peace Council is regarded by the United States as a tool to address what it perceives as a long-standing institutional paralysis.

Third: The Peace Council… Is it truly an alternative or just a parallel path?

When we look at international relations realistically, we usually consider three levels: 1. Legal level: The Peace Council can’t replace the United Nations when it comes to legitimacy grounded in international law. 2. Practical level: The Council aims to fill a real gap in conflict management, especially in cases where the United Nations has struggled to resolve or contain issues. 3. Symbolic and expressive level: This is where the concern grows, as the Council challenges the UN’s exclusive claim to legitimacy in the “peace industry.” In the end, it’s not just about being an alternative or a supporting body. It’s more like a parallel system that could, over time, become a real competitor if it gains more influence and members.

Fourth: The American Dimension… Redefining International Leadership.

The creation of the Peace Council aligns with Trump’s broader perspective on international relations, emphasizing three key points: reducing dependence on multilateral organizations, strengthening alliances, and shifting decision-making authority to major global powers. From this standpoint, the Council is less about promoting peace and more about reshaping America’s influence and alliances, especially in a world where Washington is reluctant to bear the costs of a global order it cannot fully control. This reflects a shift away from seeking international legitimacy toward a focus on “realistic legitimacy,” in which institutions are judged more by their results than by strict adherence to rules.

Fifth: Morocco and the Peace Council… a strategically chosen location

The Kingdom of Morocco’s decision to join the Peace Council should not be seen as a departure from the United Nations, but rather as a strategic move in its diplomatic efforts to diversify its international partnerships. Morocco maintains strong institutional ties with the UN, actively participates in peacekeeping missions, and is also eager to expand its presence in new global initiatives. By joining the Peace Council, Morocco positions itself favorably in discussions on security and stability, gaining an influential role in shaping international approaches to conflict management. This move also helps to reinforce Morocco’s image as a responsible actor that avoids relying solely on a single framework for its diplomatic and security strategies.

Sixth: Is the time of the United Nations over?

The prediction that the United Nations mission is coming to an end may be premature, but it still carries weight. The key point is that the UN is facing a crisis of legitimacy and effectiveness, not one of existence. It continues to exist, but it can no longer handle alone a world marked by multiple power centers, rising complex conflicts, and waning trust in collective action. So, the Peace Council isn’t signaling its demise but rather highlighting the deepening challenges facing the traditional international system.

In the end, the Peace Council put together by the Trump administration isn’t officially replacing the United Nations yet, but it definitely marks a shift—signaling that we’re moving from one phase to another. We’re entering a time when peace and security are handled through selective alliances and initiatives driven by major powers, rather than through large umbrella organizations. The big question is, will this new approach bring about more effective peace, or will it make the world less legitimate and more fragile? The answer won’t be found just in the data but in how this new model actually plays out on the ground.

The United Nations announced that the United States has paid approximately $160m towards its nearly $4bn in outstanding dues.

The payment goes towards the UN’s regular operating budget, according to spokesman Stephane Dujarric.

But the shortfall comes as the administration of US President Donald Trump has openly questioned its commitment to the UN and has slashed money earmarked for the international body.

Still, on Thursday, Trump appeared to endorse funding the UN during the inaugural meeting of his Board of Peace in Washington, DC.

“We’re going to help them money-wise, and we’re going to make sure the United Nations is viable,” Trump said. “And I think it’s going to eventually live up to its potential. That will be a big day.”

The UN has indicated that the US owes about $2.196bn to its regular budget, including $767m for the current year. Another $1.8bn is owed for the UN’s peacekeeping operations.

A financial crisis

For years, the UN has faced a financial crisis, with a growing shortfall of contributions. Each of the organisation’s 193 member states is required to contribute, based on its economic ability.

Poorer countries could be asked to contribute as little as 0.001 percent of the UN’s regular budget. Wealthier countries could reach the maximum contribution amount of 22 percent.

But unpaid dues have already forced the UN to slash its spending and reduce its services.

In a stark warning last month, United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres cautioned that the international body faces an “imminent financial collapse” unless its financial rules are overhauled or all 193 member nations pay their dues.

Guterres revealed that the UN’s regular operating budget could be depleted as early as July, a scenario that would severely jeopardise its global operations.

The US is the largest donor to the UN, as the world’s largest economy. But it currently owes billions in unpaid dues.

UN officials have stated that the US accounts for approximately 95 percent of the arrears to the organisation’s regular budget.

‘Empty words’

Since returning to the White House for a second term in January 2025, Trump has elevated concerns that US dues might go unpaid.

The Republican leader has repeatedly criticised the UN as ineffective, even articulating that sentiment at September’s UN General Assembly.

“What is the purpose of the United Nations?” Trump asked the assembly. “All they seem to do is write a really strongly worded letter and then never follow that letter up. It’s empty words.”

Throughout his second term so far, he has cut foreign aid spending and withdrawn from international commitments. In January, for instance, his government pulled out of 31 UN programmes, including its democracy fund and a body that works on maternal and child health.

But on Thursday, at his Board of Peace meeting, Trump appeared to take a warmer stance towards the UN, saying he planned to work “very closely” with the organisation.

“Someday, I won’t be here. The United Nations will be,” he said, seeming to endorse its longevity.

Trump also acknowledged the organisation’s financial distress: “They need help, and they need help money-wise.” He did not mention the US arrears.

While the Board of Peace establishment was meant to oversee the Gaza ceasefire, many see it as an attempt by Trump to rival the UN Security Council’s role in preventing and ending conflicts around the world.

Critics have described the board, which Trump chairs, as a “parallel system” that risks undermining the UN’s authority and operations.

Trump himself appeared to position his Board of Peace as an oversight body for the UN in Thursday’s remarks.

The Board of Peace, he said, “is going to almost be looking over the United Nations and making sure it runs properly”.

Since October 2023, UNRWA has faced attacks by Israel’s government, funding cuts from the US, and legal cases questioning the organisation’s neutrality. During that time, Israeli forces have killed more than 380 UNRWA staff in Gaza.

In this episode of Centre Stage, Al Jazeera’s Mohamed Hassan speaks with UNRWA’s commissioner general, Philippe Lazzarini, about Israel’s ban on the agency and what he calls a turning point for international law and the global order.

UN warns that Israel’s plan will lead to widespread dispossession of Palestinian land in the occupied West Bank.

More than 80 United Nations member states have condemned Israel’s plan to expand control over the occupied West Bank and claim large tracts of Palestinian territory as Israeli “state property”.

“We strongly condemn unilateral Israeli decisions and measures aimed at expanding Israel’s unlawful presence in the West Bank,” Palestinian Ambassador to the UN Riyad Mansour said on Tuesday, speaking on behalf of the coalition of 85 member states and several international organisations.

“Such decisions are contrary to Israel’s obligations under international law and must be immediately reversed. We underline in this regard our strong opposition to any form of annexation,” Mansour said.

“We reiterate our rejection of all measures aimed at altering the demographic composition, character and status of the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem,” he said.

“Such measures violate international law, undermine the ongoing efforts for peace and stability in the region, run counter to the Comprehensive Plan and jeopardise the prospect of reaching a peace agreement ending the conflict”, he added.

The Comprehensive Plan is a November agreement between Israel and Hamas to end Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza, which includes a halt to Israel’s illegal settlement activity in the occupied West Bank.

Signatories to the joint statement on Tuesday include Australia, Canada, China, France, Pakistan, Russia, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, Turkiye , the United Arab Emirates, the European Union, the League of Arab States and the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation.

The joint statement follows Israel’s decision to implement land registration in Section C of the West Bank for the first time since 1967, when Israel began its occupation of Palestinian territory.

Section C makes up about 60 percent of the West Bank’s territory, according to the illegal settlement monitoring organisation Peace Now.

UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, earlier this week, warned that Israel’s land registration plan could lead to the “dispossession of Palestinians of their property and risks expanding Israeli control over land in the area”.

Guterres warned that the process could be both “destabilising” and unlawful, citing a landmark 2024 ruling by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) that stated Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and Gaza is unlawful and must end.

Israel’s “abuse of its status as the occupying power” renders its “presence in the occupied Palestinian territory unlawful”, the ICJ said in its ruling.

“Israeli settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and the regime associated with them, have been established and are being maintained in violation of international law,” the court added.

According to the ICJ, approximately 465,000 Israeli settlers live in the occupied West Bank, spread across some 300 settlements and outposts, which are illegal under international law.

Separately on Tuesday, a 13-year-old Palestinian child was killed, and two other children were seriously injured, in the occupied West Bank’s central Jordan Valley area by ammunition discarded by the Israeli military, the Palestinian Wafa news agency reported.

The injured children, aged 12 and 14, are receiving treatment in hospital, Wafa said.

Experts say newly recently released documents show the need for an independent investigation into Epstein’s sex-trafficking ring.

A group of United Nations experts have suggested that abuses carried out by convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein could meet the definition of crimes against humanity.

On Tuesday, the independent experts appointed by the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) released a statement in response to the millions of files released by the United States government related to criminal investigations into Epstein.

They explained that the records tell a story of dehumanisation, racism and corruption.

“So grave is the scale, nature, systematic character, and transnational reach of these atrocities against women and girls, that a number of them may reasonably meet the legal threshold of crimes against humanity,” the experts wrote.

The UNHRC panel called for an investigation into allegations around Epstein and his associates, who include prominent figures in global politics, business, science and culture.

They added that the revelations from the files suggest a “global criminal enterprise”.

“All the allegations contained in the ‘Epstein Files’ are egregious in nature and require independent, thorough, and impartial investigation, as well as inquiries to determine how such crimes could have taken place for so long,” the experts said.

The latest condemnation follows the January 30 release of 3.5 million pages of files from the US government’s records on Epstein.

The files were required to be released as part of the Epstein Files Transparency Act, a bipartisan piece of legislation signed into law in November.

The act gave the US government 30 days to publish all of its Epstein-related documents in a searchable format, obscuring information only to protect victims’ privacy.

But the 30-day deadline came and went, with only a partial release of the files. Even the January 30 publication has been criticised as incomplete, with reports indicating that there could be more than 6 million files in the government’s possession.

The newly released documents have revealed new details about Epstein’s relationships with influential figures, but few have faced accountability.

Critics have argued that Epstein himself faced scant legal consequences for the sex crimes he perpetuated. He reached a plea deal in Florida in 2008, wherein he pleaded guilty to soliciting a child for prostitution and sex trafficking, but he only served 13 months in custody.

He was in jail in 2019, facing federal charges, when he died by suicide in his cell.

Epstein’s ex-girlfriend, Ghislaine Maxwell, has been sentenced to more than 20 years for her role in the sex trafficking scheme.

In Tuesday’s statement, the experts on the UN panel slammed the heavy redactions in the Epstein files that appear to shield the identities of powerful figures.

“The reluctance to fully disclose information or broaden investigations, has left many survivors feeling retraumatized and subjected to what they describe as ‘institutional gaslighting’,” the UN experts said.

Their criticism echoes similar accusations in the US. Lawmakers there have argued that the administration of President Donald Trump, a former friend of Epstein, has defied the November law by redacting documents beyond the guidelines set out by Congress.

The experts also noted that there appeared to be “botched redactions that exposed sensitive victim information”. They added that more must be done to ensure justice for the survivors.

“Any suggestion that it is time to move on from the ‘Epstein files’ is unacceptable. It represents a failure of responsibility towards victims,” they said.