Security Council Renews UN's Haiti Mission Amid Spiralling Crises
By adopting resolution 2785, the Council renewed the authorization of the UN Integrated Office in Haiti (BINUH), reaffirming support for a Haitian-led solution to the island nation's overlapping crises.
The decision comes as armed gangs maintain their grip on most of the capital, Port-au-Prince, with over 1.3 million people displaced and more than 4,000 killed in the first half of 2025 alone, according to UN figures.
Conditions have deteriorated dramatically amid growing food insecurity and the erosion of public institutions. Of particular concern is the safety of women and girls, with a sharp rise in reports of sexual violence since the start of the year – including rape, gang rape, and sexual enslavement.
Time is running out
The Security Council also 'expressed its intention to consider, without delay' the recommendations by the Secretary-General on possible future roles for the UN in sustaining security and stability in Haiti.
In February, António Guterres presented the Council with a range of options.
' Each new wave of criminal attacks against the communities and institutions of Haiti is a distressing sign that time is running out,' the UN chief said in a letter.
He urged Member States to support the Multinational Security Support (MSS) mission, which the Council authorized in October 2023 to assist Haiti's national police in tackling gang violence and restoring order. He also emphasized that international efforts to improve security must be matched by national progress toward resolving the political crisis.
Several Council members voiced willingness to engage on the Secretary-General's proposals. The Chinese representative, for instance, said Beijing was open to working with others to chart a constructive way forward.
'With regard to how to improve the situation in Haiti, including how to respond to the Secretary-General's recommendations, we are ready to have candid communication with all parties, explore viable solutions and seek the broadest possible consensus,' said Geng Shuang, Deputy Permanent Representative of China to the UN.
Mission critical
The Council's action was welcomed by Haiti's Ambassador, who underscored the political and security stakes ahead of a critical 2026 transition timeline.
' This extension should help Haitian authorities undertake a real, genuine political dialogue, to strengthen good governance, bolster security and bring about justice and promote human rights,' said Pierre Ericq Pierre, Permanent Representative to the UN.
He also expressed his Government's expectation that the UN mission will support implementation of the national roadmap, including constitutional reforms and elections.
Emphasizing national ownership, he added: 'BINUH must work as part of a holistic plan to support Haitian authorities in confronting the grave crisis shaking the country to its core.'
The United States, which led negotiations on the resolution alongside Panama, stressed the urgency of political progress and called on international partners to increase support.
'Less than one year remains on the Transitional Presidential Council's planned roadmap for the restoration of democratic institutions,' said Ambassador Dorothy Shea, acting representative.
' Supporting the security of elections and the participation of all sectors of society is key to sustainable political progress in Haiti. Without BINUH, realizing the vision of a stronger, more resilient society would be less likely. '
New mission leadership
Council members also welcomed Carlos G. Ruiz Massieu, appointed as the new Special Representative of the Secretary-General and Head of BINUH, succeeding María Isabel Salvador.
Mr. Ruiz Massieu, who currently leads the UN Verification Mission in Colombia, brings decades of diplomatic and political experience, including in peace negotiations and institution-building.
The UN Integrated Office in Haiti (BINUH) – a special political mission – was established in 2019 to advise and support Haitian authorities on political dialogue, justice, human rights and governance.
It succeeded a series of UN peacekeeping and political missions on the island, dating back to 1993, including the large-scale MINUSTAH operation, which wrapped up in 2017 after 13 years.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NZ Herald
an hour ago
- NZ Herald
‘It's a massive tax' - can Trump's tariffs reduce inequality, or will they enhance it?
The President doesn't talk much about inequality. But his animating argument for tariffs — that they will pressure companies to bring well-paid manufacturing jobs back to America — is pitched to those workers who felt left behind and neglected. So, will the tariffs reduce inequality? Probably not, and here's why. Hyper globalisation certainly contributed to America's rising inequality. Consumers saved hundreds of dollars on the cost of televisions, shoes, and comforters. But many middle-class livelihoods and communities were destroyed when factories either relocated to countries where wages were lower or went bust because they couldn't compete with cheap imports. China's entry into the global marketplace at the beginning of this century delivered a major wallop. Between 1999 and 2011, Chinese imports were directly responsible for the loss of 2.4 million American jobs, according to researchers. It is true that more jobs were created, but many of them did not pay as well as those that were eliminated, nor were they taken by the workers who lost out. Still, cheaper imports were only one part of the story. Automation and the creation of a digital economy that introduced online selling and cloud-based services had a far greater effect on the American economy. Take manufacturing. Of the six million factory jobs erased during the 2000s, Chinese imports accounted for about one-sixth of the losses, or one million jobs. But the other five million were killed off by other forces. For years, labour unions had bargained for higher wages, overtime pay and other benefits. But their ranks significantly declined. A street in Elyria, Ohio, once home to many manufacturing plants, on September 18, 2017. Many middle-class livelihoods and communities were destroyed when factories relocated to other countries. Photo / Andrew Spear, The New York Times Automobile factories, for instance, not only moved from Michigan to Mexico, they also moved to southern states including Alabama and Tennessee, where anti-union laws were common and wages were lower. I visited a meat processing plant in Storm Lake, Iowa, during Trump's first term. One of the workers was hired in 1980, when it was a union shop. His starting salary was US$16 an hour plus benefits. When I met him, 37 years later, that plant was no longer unionised, and his pay was still US$16 an hour. The growth of mega firms like Google, Apple, Amazon and Walmart that ate up or weeded out the competition also gave companies power over pricing and wages. The result was that the slice of the total economic pie going to workers shrank. If inequality has multiple causes, why do trade and globalisation get blamed so much? The fallout from globalisation packed a particular punch. Trade can cause economic losses to pile up and overwhelm a locale, such as Hickory, North Carolina, once a powerhouse of furniture making. Another reason is that political leaders exploit economic setbacks and insecurities. Trade offered a simple and satisfying explanation — even if not wholly accurate — that outsiders were to blame. For many people, foreign competition also set off deep cultural and economic anxieties. Diana Mutz, a political scientist at the University of Pennsylvania, argues that many Americans, including Trump, view trade as a zero-sum game rather than a co-operative enterprise in which everyone can benefit. Foxconn workers on an assembly line at Quanta factory in Chongqing, China, on November 27, 2012. In the early 2000s, Chinese imports were directly responsible for the loss of 2.4 million American jobs, according to researchers. Photo / Gilles Sabrie, The New York Times Through that lens, trade is a pitiless dogfight that is desirable only if the US is the 'winner' and other countries are losers. Americans also tend to expect the government to respond more strongly to job losses that result from trade compared with other economic forces. Dani Rodrik, an economist at Harvard University, helped conduct a large online survey in which respondents read a made-up newspaper article about the closure of a garment factory that provided different reasons for the shutdown. One group was told it was because of new technology. A second was told management bungling was the culprit. A third group was told trade, such as relocating production abroad, was the cause. When trade was the cause, the number of people who demanded that the government respond doubled or tripled. 'Foreign trade is particularly prone to charges of unfairness,' Rodrik writes, because countries operate under differing rules and conditions. Government subsidies, weaker health and environmental regulations or sweatshop conditions, for instance, bestow an unfair competitive advantage. For decades, 'fair trade' has been the rallying cry of protectionists who complained of an uneven playing field. A former glass factory is set up as a battery factory in Bridgeport, West Virginia, on February 9, 2023. Oren Cass, the chief economist at American Compass, a conservative think-tank, says that factories can boost regions that need it. Photo / Andrew Spear, The New York Times That sounds like Trump's tariffs could make a difference, no? Tariffs can certainly affect how income is distributed — either increasing or decreasing inequality. Oren Cass, chief economist at American Compass, a conservative think-tank, says that with the Trump tariffs, the effect would be positive. He argues that factories, often located outside of the tech, finance and media capitals, can boost regions that need it. A factory creates jobs and serves as an economic hub. That in turn generates other jobs — for barbers, baristas, and manicurists. 'Reorienting the economy toward one that is going to better serve the average worker,' could reduce inequality, Cass said. But other economists disagreed, arguing that the President's tariffs and the haphazard way they were imposed will amplify inequality. While some select industries will benefit from added protection, the biggest burden, they agreed, will fall on low- and middle-income households. The cost of pretty much everything will go up because of tariffs. 'It's a massive tax,' said Kimberly Clausing, a professor of tax law and policy at the UCLA School of Law. She expects that four out of five Americans will be worse off. So far, the overall average effective tariff rate has jumped from 2.4% in early January to 18.3%, according to the Budget Lab at Yale University. On average, higher prices will end up costing each household an extra US$2400 this year. Shoes and clothing prices, for example, are expected to rise by as much as 40% in the short run, the Budget Lab estimated. Prices are expected to stay at 17% or 19% higher over the long run. US businesses, particularly small and medium-sized ones, will also feel the pinch of higher costs. Some 40% of imports are used to produce or build things in the US. Construction costs are likely to jump. The Budget Lab estimates that by the end of this year, US payrolls will shrink by nearly 500,000 jobs. As for manufacturing, the number of jobs might grow, but they won't be like the well-paid ones that high school graduates used to get. Most factories are highly automated and run with computer technology. Last year, the US steel industry employed 86,000 people and produced roughly 88 million tonnes of raw steel. In 1970, it took 354,000 steelworkers to produce that same amount, according to the American Iron and Steel Institute. I recently visited one of the largest steel plants in Europe. I saw titanic machinery and control stations with computer screens, but hardly any workers on the floor. Today, the best paying manufacturing jobs require significant training and skills. Those that don't, offer low wages. At the moment there are more than 400,000 unfilled manufacturing jobs in the US. Even if the US$1.2 trillion trade deficit were erased, and purchases of foreign goods were replaced by domestic ones, the US would still not turn into a manufacturing powerhouse, said Robert Lawrence, an economist at Harvard University. Nor would it reduce inequality. Under that scenario, Lawrence calculated that manufacturing jobs would rise from 7.9% to just 9.7% of total employment. And less than half of those would actually involve work in production. The rest are in sales, management and accounting. Lawrence, whose book Behind the Curve examines the role that manufacturing plays in the economy, explained that 'even if all these policies were actually successful in bringing back as much manufacturing as possible, it's too small to change the basic income distribution in the economy.' This article originally appeared in The New York Times. Written by: Patricia Cohen Photographs by: Mark Abramson, Andrew Spear, Gilles Sabrie ©2025 THE NEW YORK TIMES
Otago Daily Times
4 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
Counting up the babies in China (and elsewhere)
In 2014, Chinese film-maker Zhang Yimou and his wife paid a fine of $US1.2 million for having a third child, which was against the law. They did not go to jail — it was treated more like a very big parking ticket — but it was assessed according to the parents' income, and it was meant to hurt. Over the years, the Chinese regime has collected about $US2 trillion ($NZ3.4t) in baby fines. Zhang just had bad timing. Had he waited one more year he would have kept that money, because having a third child was suddenly declared legal in 2015. Indeed, under the new pro-natal rules announced last month, he and his wife now would be entitled to $500 a year for each child under 3 (but he is not getting his money back). The Chinese regime has been obsessed with its population for half a century — and getting it wrong at almost every turn. The original "One Child Policy" was imposed in 1979, only three years after Mao Zedong's death. Under the Great Helmsman a huge population was a good thing, but subsequent planners thought it would hold China back. So, they created new laws that were arbitrary, ill-considered and futile. The One Child Policy was strictly enforced in the cities, although rural families were sometimes allowed a second child if the first was a girl. However, it was introduced just as urbanisation and education for girls were starting to push China's birth rate down anyway. Between 1970 and 1978, just before the policy was inflicted on 600 million Chinese, the fertility rate plummeted from an average of 5.8 children per woman to only 2.7. It has continued to drop more slowly, passing through 1.7 in 2015 and bottoming out at 1.0 in 2023. So now there is panic in Beijing. Will we have enough workers to keep the economy growing in the next generation? Will we have enough soldiers? Will there even be enough young Chinese to look after us all when we get old, for the old will outnumber the young. The answer to all these questions is no. Probably not. The latest estimate is that China's population, now 1.4 billion, will be back down to 600 million by 2100. A much larger share of that population than usual will be past working age, as is always the case when populations fall for non-catastrophic reasons. And the pro-birth measures that the government is now rolling out will have little effect; they rarely do. It is not just China; it's the new normal. South Korea never had a one-child policy, but it shows an almost identical trend line, dropping from a fertility rate of 6.1 children per female in 1960 to 2.8 babies per woman in 1980 and only 0.75 children per woman in 2023. Japan, Brazil, India; they all show the same story of falling fertility on the graphs, with only minor distinctions between them. Bring your population into the cities and the cash economy, educate your young women, and regardless of the local culture, religion or ideology those young women will decide for themselves how many babies they want. (Hint: it is not six.) Dramatic incentives like those proposed in South Korea — big loans (up to $US73,000) for newlywed couples, with debt forgiveness based on the number of children born; child allowances up to age 18; lower taxes for families with more children — may help a bit, but they will not boost the fertility rate back above the replacement level (2.1 children per woman). Even China's harsh One Child Policy, with its forced abortions, sterilisations and cash penalties, achieved little. The regime still claims it spared the country another 400 million mouths to feed, but leading academics estimate it avoided 100million births at most over three decades. The real takeaway is that declining populations almost everywhere except in Africa and bits of the Middle East should not be seen only as a problem. They bring with them problems like a higher dependency ratio (more elderly people depending on a shrinking workforce), but managing this kind of "problem" is what governments are there for. The larger difficulty, I suspect, is ideological and even psychological. Almost every human being has been steeped in the notion that growth is always good. I am not anti-growth in principle, but like most people I grew up in a country that is now much more populous than it was when I was a child. Yet it never felt empty, and it was not boring. We got from two billion to eight billion in the past 80 years, but the old place is still essentially the same. If we are now heading back down to three or four billion in the next century (as we probably are), we shouldn't feel particularly threatened. — Gwynne Dyer is an independent London journalist.
RNZ News
a day ago
- RNZ News
Two former Labour MPs vie for seats on Hamilton City Council
Photo: RNZ / Isra'a Emhail Two former Labour MPs will vie for a seat on the Hamilton City Council at the local body elections in October. Sue Moroney and Jamie Strange will run against a field of 26 candidates , including former National MP Tim Macindoe, in the East Ward. Six seats available in each of Hamiltons East and West wards. Macindoe, an incumbent councillor, is also standing for mayor. Moroney left Parliament in 2017 and has been the chief executive of the Community Law centres for the past seven years. Strange, a former school music teacher and church minister, exited Parliament in 2023. In total there were 51 candidates vying for a place on the council, including 12 for mayor. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
