Eighty years ago the future of European and American security was uncertain, as the world was in the midst of World War II. With fighting ongoing, a historic meeting took place at the Bretton Woods Hotel - now the Omni Mount Washington Resort - in the White Mountains, where delegates from 44 nations converged to begin to rebuild. The goal of these meetings was to create a new international monetary system that would prevent future conflict and foster global prosperity. The Bretton Woods Conference resulted in the establishment of two major institutions that continue to influence the world today: the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank.

A significant achievement of the conference was the establishment of the Bretton Woods system, where currencies were linked to the US dollar, while the dollar itself was tied to gold at $35 an ounce. The system provided stability to the post-war global economy, laying the groundwork for today’s global financial system. Although the gold standard has evolved and the global economy faces new challenges, the IMF and World Bank continue to play an important role by overseeing global financial stability, helping developing nations grow, and responding to crises that emerge around the world. 

(Source: https://mediacenter.imf.org/news/imfc-meeting/s/09e49407-5028-41e0-b70e-74f7e3cc510c)

The importance of these two organizations was underscored two weeks ago during the annual meetings of the IMF and World Bank in Washington, D.C. At these meetings global financial leaders discussed major global challenges: ongoing conflicts in Ukraine, Gaza, and Lebanon as well as the alarming rise of public debt, which is set to exceed $100 trillion for the first time in history. A key outcome of the meetings was a surcharges review by the IMF, aimed at lowering borrowing costs for member countries by $1.6 billion per year. While the global nature of these organizations may seem less relevant to daily life, their work has a direct impact on the global financial system - and in turn, affects the economy here in New Hampshire.

As a student at American University in Washington, D.C. I had the opportunity to attend an event hosted by the German Marshall Fund, where I heard directly from Poland’s Finance Minister, Andrzej Domański. As the fastest-growing economy in Europe, I heard about Poland’s plans for leveraging this rapid growth while prioritizing defense spending as Russia continues its invasion to Poland’s east in Ukraine. Poland has been an active member of both the IMF and World Bank, using funds to respond to the 2008 Financial Crisis while investing in better air quality and energy efficiency. Hearing about Poland’s economic success was a valuable reminder that America’s partners around the world benefit from the international system that New Hamphsire helped develop. 

(Source: German Marshall Fund via X)

New Hampshire is the proud birthplace of both the IMF and World Bank that continue to have a major impact on development and the global financial system. Eighty years after the Bretton Woods Conference, these organizations continue to reflect New Hampshire’s historic role in shaping the modern world. As people around the world continue to become more interconnected, it is clear that decisions made at the World Bank and IMF will continue to resonate here in New Hampshire. By staying informed, we can better understand how the global financial system impacts our local economy, businesses, and everyday lives.

By: Lucas Gendron, WACNH Intern

The World Affairs Council of New Hampshire (WACNH) has chosen Rita Castonguay-Hunt, Director of Operations at ArgenTech Solutions, Inc., as the 2024 International Businesswoman of the Year award recipient. Ms. Castonguay-Hunt has distinguished herself by creating strategic partnerships and leading complex unmanned aircraft systems operations worldwide, excelling in a field that remains predominantly male, both in the U.S. and globally. According to the World Affairs Council, her global outlook, dedication to elevating New Hampshire’s business presence internationally, and strategic partnership initiatives have earned her this prestigious recognition.

“Having worked directly with Rita Castonguay-Hunt in several of her positions and projects, I can verify that she is knowledgeable, strategic, and creative when it comes to developing, growing, and sustaining business on a global level,” said Dawn Wivell, CEO of Firebrand International. “She is devoted to growing NH business internationally and embodies the best qualities of being a businesswoman in a very male oriented sector: aerospace, aviation, and unmanned systems.”

Now in its third year, the World Affairs Council of New Hampshire’s International Businesswoman of the Year award celebrates exceptional women who exemplify resilience, overcome obstacles, and forge successful global connections. This award also recognizes the distinct challenges women face in the international business landscape and honors those who excel despite these realities. Past recipients include Grace Preston of GSSI and Lindsey Badger of Airex, showcasing the level of leadership and achievement recognized by this prestigious honor.

The WACNH will present this award to Ms. Castonguay-Hunt at its annual Global Business Summit – Consulate Reception on November 12. This event brings together the consular corps from Boston representing the interests of countries around the world. Attended by leaders across business, government, academics, and the public, WACNH provides a unique opportunity to build global connections from right here in the state. In its second year, WACNH is proud to welcome the Consul General of Korea and the Director General of the Taiwan Economic and Cultural Office to this event.

For additional information and registration please visit: tinyurl.com/Consulate-Reception-2024

As my internship with the World Affairs Council of New Hampshire draws to a close, I find myself reflecting on a dynamic summer that has broadened my perspective on the world and prepared me for opportunities in the future. As I enter my senior year at American University, I am grateful for the experiences I have had and the skills I have gained. 

Over the summer I have been exposed to a wide range of topics and projects in global affairs. From day one, I was given responsibility for projects that would be published in Council communications. One of the most unique and transformative projects I worked on was writing blog posts around current topics in global affairs, from the conflict between Israel and Palestine to the complexity of weaponized migration. Each piece I worked on was a chance to critically engage with a certain issue, as I worked to refine my writing to make it more informative and factual. 

One of the highlights of my internship has been the opportunity to accompany groups visiting New Hampshire as part of the State Department’s International Visitor Leadership Program (IVLP). Seeing the exchange of ideas between professionals from the state and international visitors further reinforced the significant impact of my work as an intern and the vital role the Council plays in fostering these connections. 

Towards the end of the summer, I was honored to participate in an event that welcomed members of parliament from Ukraine and provided a platform for them to speak about the conflict their nation faces. Not only was I moved by their emotional testimonies from the war, but it was powerful to witness the dialogue between these members of parliament and citizens in New Hampshire as people asked thoughtful questions. Events like these allow members of the community to become a part of the conversation about global issues as informed citizens. 

As a young person especially, my work at the Council has allowed me to more fully understand my role as a global citizen. Through my own international experiences and the countless opportunities to meet visitors this summer, I have often found myself representing New Hampshire and the United States in the conversations I have had. My work this summer has shifted my understanding to better see my place in our interconnected world. As I look towards my future, I am more sure than ever that engagement with organizations like the World Affairs Council of New Hampshire will remain vital to understanding the issues that lie ahead. 

I am immensely pleased to share that this summer has set the stage for my next adventure. I have been offered a State Department internship for the upcoming spring semester, which will deepen my understanding and engagement with international affairs in Washington, D.C. While I am proud of the effort I invested in my application, I want to acknowledge the importance of the World Affairs Council of New Hampshire in reaching this milestone. Their insight and guidance made me aware of this opportunity and helped me to build a strong application through exposure to a variety of projects and experiences this summer. From writing blog posts to accompanying international leaders, I am thankful for all I have learned - and how I have learned - over the past few months that prepares me to think critically and speak thoughtfully in this new role.

By: Lucas Gendron, WACNH Intern

As the United States and the European Union continue to grapple with the challenges brought on by large waves of immigrants arriving at their borders, the issue of weaponized migration has resurged, with nations looking to cause problems for their western adversaries. By encouraging and facilitating the mass movement of people, Venezuela, Russia, and Cuba, among other nations, have used these hybrid attacks to extract concessions, embarrass adversaries, sow internal division, and for other malign purposes. With an increasing need for governments to manage the influx of people, a strong understanding of the causes and motivations of weaponized migration is required to craft effective policy responses. 

Weaponized migration, by definition, is the concerted effort of mobilizing and facilitating the transportation of migrants towards a border, with the goal of coercing the government of a neighboring country to take a specific action. Countries engaged in weaponized migration may have ultimate aims ranging from political concessions from an adversary to larger regional destabilization. Over the past few years, there has been a concerted effort by Venezuela, Cuba, and Nicaragua to overwhelm American borders and escalate political pressure on the Biden administration. Historically, Cuba and Haiti have engaged in weaponized migration against the United States, since the 1960s, as part of an effort to obtain favorable policies, military support, or to push for the end of restrictive measures. An infamous case is the 1980 Mariel Boatlift, when Fidel Castro organized the transportation of 125,000 Cubans to Florida, overwhelming the US Coast Guard and fracturing approval of the Carter administration. 

Countries that engage in weaponized migration are often politically and militarily weaker than their adversaries and use the tactic as a way to wage asymmetric warfare against the targeted country. For Belarus and Russia, weaponizing migrants has been a powerful tool to overwhelm the European Union, allowing them to cause problems for the EU without prompting a military response. Previously, Belarus opened travel agencies across the Middle East, posing as an unofficial route into Europe via the Belarusian-Polish border, with the goal of embarrassing these governments and sowing internal division . Russia also sparked concern after announcing Kaliningrad would be open to airlines from foreign countries which might encourage increased migration over the border into Poland and the European Union. As the Modern Warfare Institute explains, the Kremlin is weaponizing migrants to create a domino effect where the social welfare systems of EU countries are overwhelmed as a result. Following this, tensions between migrants and locals bring a rise of far-right populist governments that then drive a more pro-Russian agenda. In the United States, on the other hand, Cuba has been sending migrants to Nicaragua with the help of the Venezuelan government, utilizing Nicaragua as the geographic gateway to the United States. Amidst the greater immigration crisis at the US border and the political divide among American voters, Maduro’s regime in Venezuela has used this tactic to extort lightened sanctions from the Biden administration.  

The responses to weaponized migration by the United States and the European Union have differed, based on the distinct political challenges posed in each case. Poland has had to bear the brunt of the efforts by Russia and Belarus as it lies on the eastern front of the EU. The unique nature of the European Union has limited Poland’s ability to build an independent immigration policy, as national governments are responsible for external border control, but within most of the bloc there is borderless travel. The EU formally passed a pact in May that established rules to manage migration and establish a common asylum system, although both Poland and Hungary opposed the measure. Despite these institutional limits, Poland has heightened physical security on its borders, completing a steel wall at the border with Belarus and an electronic barrier at the border with the Russian exclave, Kaliningrad. Physical border security has become the primary response by the Polish government, as Russia and Belarus weaponize migrants to divert Polish resources away from supporting Ukraine. While Poland is limited in policy response due to the EU, the United States has engaged in a more encompassing response to cases of weaponized migration. In May, the White House, State Department, and Department of the Treasury responded to Nicaragua’s actions by sanctioning  Nicaraguan-based entities, and issued a policy alert that warned airlines about their exploitation by the Nicaraguan government. The approach of the US government aims to deter the Nicaraguan government from adding to the burden at the southern border as immigration remains a highly-polarized domestic issue. 

(Image from CBS: standoff between soldiers and migrants at the Belarus-Poland border)

While the EU and the United States face unique challenges in the face of increased migration, the use of weaponized migration presents a real threat to borders, as resources and personnel are overwhelmed. Countries engaged in weaponized migration aim to destabilize other nations or regions to advance broader military or political objectives. Despite the different motivations a country may have for weaponized migration, it is vital for targeted countries to understand the strategy of adversaries to respond effectively.

By: Lucas Gendron, WACNH Intern

The World Affairs Council of NH recently had the honor of hosting four Members of Parliament from Ukraine as part of our professional exchange program, organized in collaboration with the Congressional Office for International Leadership. These leaders brought with them a powerful message of resilience, hope, and determination that resonated deeply with our New Hampshire community.

During their visit, we organized two roundtable discussions with New Hampshire legislators. The first was with leadership from the House of Representatives, and the second brought together state senators. These sessions provided an invaluable opportunity for the Ukrainian MPs to gain insights into how our state government operates while also allowing them to share their urgent priorities. They discussed the critical need to win the war, maintain American and NATO support, demonstrate Ukraine’s transparent budgeting process and anti-corruption efforts, keep the war and Ukraine’s national security at the forefront of international priorities, engage with assistance providers, and plan for the nation’s recovery and rebuilding after the conflict.

To help the Ukrainian delegation understand the strong support the New Hampshire community has for Ukraine, we arranged a roundtable with local nonprofits actively sending aid to their country. Representatives from organizations like Common Man for Ukraine, Dobro New England Inc., NH4Ukraine, Alpine Dignity, and The Loving Lifeline gathered to discuss their efforts and explore new ways to collaborate. This meeting not only highlighted the depth of support in New Hampshire but also provided an opportunity to share strategies for enhancing the delivery of aid back to Ukraine. The exchange of ideas during this discussion was invaluable, fostering new partnerships and strengthening existing ones.

One of the most memorable moments of the visit was when our guests spoke at RiverWoods in Exeter. Engaging with over 50 community members, they shared firsthand accounts of their experiences and the resilience of the Ukrainian people. The impact was profound, as many in the audience were moved to tears, highlighting the importance of human connection and the role our community plays in supporting those affected by global events.

After their final meeting on Friday, the delegation finally got a chance to catch their breath and experience some of New Hampshire's beautiful hospitality by visiting Hampton Beach. They soaked up the great weather and dipped their toes in the Atlantic Ocean—some for the first time in years. This simple, yet meaningful experience allowed for reflection and connection to the natural beauty of New Hampshire.

Their trip concluded with a welcoming reception attended by nearly 70 community members, including Senator Jeanne Shaheen's Deputy State Director, who read a letter from the Senator to the delegation, and former U.S. Senator Gordon Humphrey. This event provided a rare opportunity for New Hampshire residents to meet these international leaders one-on-one. The conversations were heartfelt, and the connections made will undoubtedly endure.

A unique aspect of our exchange program is the home-stay experience. This year, four host families, three of whom were first-time hosts, formed deep bonds with their guests. One host was moved to tears as she said goodbye, expressing, "She is the daughter I never had." Such moments underscore the power of these exchanges in fostering understanding and friendship across borders.

Reflecting on this exchange, it’s clear that the impact goes beyond the events themselves. Our Ukrainian guests were interviewed by local media, further spreading their message of resilience and the importance of global support for Ukraine. This visit reminded us why we are committed to this work—bringing people together, bridging cultural divides, and creating opportunities for meaningful dialogue and connection.

By: Anise Jasman-Sayers, International Visitor Program Director

Somehow the narrative in the Ukraine Russian war remains that Russia is winning and that Ukraine needs to give up the fight to bring about peace. That many people take this as a given surprises me, when you take a practical look at what Russia hoped to achieve through this large-scale invasion. At the outset of the war, Putin’s Russia told the world, among many other things, that this war was necessary to topple a regime that was hostile to Russia, an immediate threat to its security, and full of fascists and neo-Nazis. This “special military operation,” as it was sold/forced onto the Russian people, was to be quick and painless, reasserting Russia’s claim to its own sphere of influence. So, remind me how Russia has achieved any of these objectives?

Let’s start with the toppling of the Ukrainian government. While many predicted that Russia would overrun Ukrainian defenses in 48-120 hours, we have all seen how woefully inaccurate that idea was. While battle lines have consistently shifted, most analysts agree that Russia remains in control of about 18% of Ukraine’s land. Even in the four regions they have claimed to annex, they do not have full control. The only area of Ukraine’s territory that they remain in full possession of is Crimea, something they took well before this second invasion. So, on the idea that this government needed to be brought down and Ukraine should come under Russian control, it seems Russia has failed miserably.

Next, let’s take the claim that Ukraine is a puppet of the West and that NATO expansionism was one reason Russia had to initiate this war. Again, on this point Russia finds itself worse off than prior to their 2022 invasion. The NATO alliance has come together to provide billions of dollars in aid to Ukraine, has opened a path to membership once the conflict ends, and has deepened ties with Ukrainian leadership. In addition, NATO has come out stronger with the addition of Sweden and Finland to the alliance, and the realization that defense production must increase to better prepare for future wars. All at a cost of zero NATO soldier deaths and the emptying of munitions that were due to expire and be destroyed anyway. So, on the idea of weakening NATO and pulling Ukraine closer to its orbit, we find Russia has failed again.

Russia also continues to claim that this war was about protecting Russian speaking people in these regions of Ukraine. Over 10,000 civilians have been killed in the fighting, and another 20,000 injured, most in the contested regions where fighting is most intense. These are the areas of the country where Russia claims to be “protecting” the civilians and “liberating” cities. Based on casualty numbers and the destruction of civilian infrastructure, I doubt that many of these people feel safer now than before the invasion.

Finally, this war was about showing Russia’s strength, highlighting their revamped military forces, and reminding neighboring states about the dangers of looking to the West. Russia wanted to prove that it had claim to its near abroad and that the declining West should stay out of it. On so many counts, this effort has failed. The myriad of logistical and strategic failures at the outset of the war and their inability to overtake a smaller and weaker neighbor, highlighted the issues with their military, not their might. The fact that the war remains in a stalemate, continues to highlight this point. In addition, opinion polls across the region show plummeting respect for Russia and a desire for countries to chart their own path. If that was not enough, Russia has only been able to get Syria and North Korea to recognize their claims of annexation, not exactly great company.

While the ongoing war remains horrific and deadly, with reports of stagnant battlelines, it remains difficult to see how anyone truly sees Russia as winning. All their stated objectives have failed and the massive humanitarian toll lies directly at the feet of Vladimir Putin. No matter how many times Russian government officials claim they are not at fault for this war, the facts are that one person decided to start this war and one person can decide to end it by removing all his troops from Ukraine. While this outcome remains remote without continued and sustained Western support for Ukraine, it remains the only way that this war could end in a day.

By: Tim Horgan, WACNH executive director

As the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s (NATO) Summit ends, the western alliance remains in a precarious moment. Challenged on multiple fronts, most notably by the ongoing Russian aggression in Ukraine, the 32 member nations came together to chart a path forward for enhanced security and deterrence. Despite the challenges, this was also a time to celebrate the enduring success of this alliance over the past 75 years. On July 12, at 11:00 am Senator Jeanne Shaheen will join the World Affairs Council of New Hampshire to unpack one of the most consequential international gatherings of the year.

As the co-chair of the Senate NATO Observer Group, as well as a senior member of the Armed Services and Foreign Relations Committees, Senator Shaheen has a wealth of knowledge and insights to draw on to assess where the alliance is headed. This fireside chat will focus on the summit's outcomes and their implications for the United States and its allies. Special emphasis will be placed on NATO’s continued support for Ukraine and why this alliance remains critical to U.S. national security interests.

“This unique opportunity provides the people of New Hampshire, and beyond, a powerful opportunity to hear from one of the most influential elected officials when it comes to National Security,” said Tim Horgan, WACNH Executive Director. “Senator Shaheen has taken on a major leadership role and it is an honor to work with her on telling the story of the NATO Summit.”

During this fireside chat with the Senator, audiences will gain deeper insights into the long term and ongoing success of the NATO alliance, what the challenges and opportunities are, as well as what key decisions were made at the summit. Continuing to confront Russian aggression in Europe provides many benefits to New Hampshire, a state that does over $3 billion worth of trade with countries on the continent, as well as supporting many of the defense contracting firms located here. Many experts also cite the potential for spillover into a NATO country, which would necessitate a response, up to and including military action. It is important for people to understand the inherent value of this alliance, to have clear eyes around the challenges, and to explore all the ways that this alliance structure affects lives both at home and abroad.

This event will take place at the Manchester Community College, 1066 Front St, Manchester on Friday, July 12. Doors will open at 10:30 am with the event starting at 11:00 am. This event is free and open to the public and media is invited to attend. More information and advanced registration at wacnh.org/event-5795175

Against the backdrop of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and a highly polarized US election, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) will celebrate its 75th anniversary during a summit in Washington, D.C. this week. The summit agenda will be dominated by three topics: NATO’s response to the war in Ukraine, bolstering allied defense and deterrence, as well as strengthening NATO partnerships, particularly in the Indo-Pacific. While highlighting a history of strength and cooperation of the alliance, NATO will need to present a plan that addresses these continued challenges to international security. 

NATO was originally founded with three broad aims of deterring Soviet expansionism, combatting nationalist militarism in Europe, and encouraging European political integration. The alliance has survived the fall of the Soviet Union and a growth in membership that points to success in ensuring the security of its allies. While these aims have been met, the ongoing Russian invasion of Ukraine continues to threaten security on the European continent. Russia’s invasion has brought NATO to the forefront for states as a key tool for defense. With Russia posing a greater threat to the region, NATO has welcomed Finland and Sweden as members in the past two years. A record number of NATO members are also meeting the 2% GDP spending target on defense. Both the increase in membership and spending point towards the continued challenge that Russia poses to the security of NATO members. At the same time, these increases reflect the continued need for NATO as a unifying alliance for members to effectively coordinate a defense strategy. 

The United States has long served as a leader within the NATO alliance, historically contributing the greatest amount of money to the alliance. The upcoming presidential election here at home will have considerable repercussions on the relationship of the United States and NATO. President Biden aims to use the upcoming conference to reaffirm US support for the alliance and express solidarity with Ukraine, while Former President Trump has taken a critical approach towards the alliance. Recently, the former President sparked concern among officials at home and abroad after declaring he might not defend NATO members who fail to meet the 2% defense spending target. His rhetoric follows that of his first term in office, where he aimed to lighten the uneven burden the United States carries in financing the alliance. As both candidates present their foreign policy goals to voters, NATO will be able to use the summit to make its own case for the support of the American public.  

A critical question that must be answered at the upcoming conference is NATO’s relationship with Ukraine amidst ongoing Russian invasion. While it has been indicated that Ukraine will not receive a formal invitation, President Zelensky has been invited as an observer. This invitation will allow leaders to express solidarity with Ukraine without facing the larger complications that Ukrainian membership poses. As Ukraine makes the case for accession, the Article 5 mutual defense clause poses one of the greatest barriers. Article 5 outlines that if an ally is attacked, all other members will come to their aid. With Article 5 in place, however, Ukrainian membership risks direct conflict between NATO and Russia. Rather than focusing on Ukrainian membership at the summit, allies can use the forum to identify ways to support Ukraine’s defense. 

In the United States, aid towards Ukraine and support for NATO are two primary foreign policy discussions that will be on the table during the conference this week. As NATO celebrates seventy five years of history of the transatlantic partnership, this conference will be an opportunity for the alliance to make the case for its continued relevance. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has renewed the need for a transatlantic alliance that is prepared to defend allies against Russian expansion and security threats yet to come. 

For more information on the upcoming conference in Washington and the role of NATO in the world, check out the recent podcast between Tim Horgan, the Executive Director of the World Affairs Council of New Hampshire and Daniel Kochis, a senior fellow in the Center on Europe and Eurasia at Hudson Institute: World Affairs Council of New Hampshire - Episode #67 - July 2024 

By: Lucas Gendron, WACNH Intern

Amidst the turmoil of the conflict between Israel and Palestine, four nations have significantly diverged from an ambiguous and lagging response from the European Union. Ireland, Spain, Slovenia, and Norway (a non-European Union country), have independently moved forward to formally recognize the Palestinian state. This decision comes at a time when civilian casualties continue to mount, showing the frustration of these four countries with Israel’s continued offensive. Joining seven other members of the EU and one hundred and forty-three countries around the world in recognition, there remains tough hurdles to ending this conflict. 

With what they believe is an insufficient response from the European Union, Ireland, Norway, Spain, and Slovenia maintain that recognizing Palestine will sustain calls for peace and promote Palestinian independence. Responses to the decision came quickly, with Israel condemning it in an official press release. Israel claimed that the decision rewarded Hamas for the October 7th terrorist attack. On the other hand, the Ambassador of Palestine in Ireland, Jilan Wahba Abdalmajid, issued a statement, declaring that “Ireland’s declaration of recognition of our right to statehood is an important statement to the international community.” Other EU member states, including Germany and France remained tactful on the matter, with Germany saying this required further dialogue and France stating that conditions had not yet been met. 

As air strikes in Central Gaza continue and civilian casualties rise in Israel’s offensive (totalling over 35,000 as of May 14 according to the Palestinian Health Authority), individual European states, such as Ireland, have become more vocal in their opposition towards Netanyahu’s strategy. This stands in contrast to the response seen from the European Union as a whole. As the Stimson Center, a nonpartisan think-tank on global peace, notes, recognition of Palestine has been a way for European countries to air their frustration towards Israel’s military approach, when the European Union continues to hold a more neutral stance. As of yet, the most significant step taken by the European Union was to call for an “immediate ceasefire.” 

Currently eleven of the twenty-seven nations in the EU recognize the state of Palestine. Seven did so before joining the EU, many of which are Central and Eastern European countries that did so in 1988 while members of the Soviet bloc. Despite the divide in Europe, the four states' choice to provide diplomatic recognition is sending a strong message to their neighbors, namely that peace for Palestine cannot wait. 

Ireland’s Department of Foreign Affairs confirmed that it would upgrade the representative office in the West Bank to an embassy and appoint an ambassador. Ireland continues to explore options such as cutting economic ties or investments with Israel, though no decisions have been made yet. Simon Harris, Ireland’s Taoiseach (Prime Minister), insisted that the EU should consider economic sanctions against Israel, with EU discussions ongoing about this matter. 

The timing of recognizing the State of Palestine is crucial. While Palestine is recognized by more than two-thirds of UN General Assembly members, there has not been unanimous approval from the Security Council’s Committee on Admission of New Members. Full membership to the UN would afford Palestine the ability to vote on draft resolutions and decisions in its main organs and bodies, many that presently pertain to the conflict. The decision by Ireland, Norway, Spain, and Slovenia to recognize Palestine will not change the path to UN membership. Still, choosing to recognize Palestine now does increase pressure on the European Union to recognize Palestine as a self-governing country. 

Hamas’s October 7, 2023 attack has been alleged as war crimes by the UN Independent International Commission and the International Criminal Court, including for targeting civilians, sexual and gender-based violence, and other atrocities. The military response by Israel has also been alleged as war crimes by the UN Independent International Commission and the International Criminal Court for not properly distinguishing between combatants and civilians. Both Israel and Hamas dispute their respective charges. 

The case of recognition for a Palestinian state continues to challenge capitals across the world, however, the biggest hurdle remains the United Nations Security Council. While governments and regional blocs will continue to make their own decisions on how to approach the ongoing conflict, regardless of recognition, a lot of work remains to bring a lasting peace.

By Lucas Gendron, WACNH Intern

Over the past several weeks, months, and years, Haiti has experienced crisis after crisis, which has lead the country down a path of misery. Conflict came to a head in the past several weeks as the unelected Prime Minister's mandate expired with no movement towards sorely needed national elections (which have not taken place since 2016). Chaos reigns supreme in this island nation, with gangs ransacking government buildings, breaking prisoners out of jail, and preventing the return of Prime Minister Henry from a trip abroad to secure support for an international peace keeping force.

As the crises continued piling up, the World Affairs Council of New Hampshire reached out to Sophie Rutenbar of the Brookings Institution, the Council on Foreign Relations, and the NYU Center on International Cooperation to gain insights into the history of Haiti and how it got to be in such a mess. Of course, it is important to note that the long standing issues facing Haiti since European contact, have directly led to today's situation, so it is important that we understand the roots of this challenge. While there are no easy answers to this ongoing crisis, there is a strong need for the international community to do something. This is not a call to do nothing, but rather a call to do better than the past.

Listen wherever you get your podcasts or on our website HERE.