Africa

Ghana's MPs destroyed parliamentary property, including tables, microphones, sound equipment, and other items.

Days of heavy fighting between M23 rebels and DR Congo's army leave hospitals overwhelmed with patients.

Days of heavy fighting between M23 rebels and DR Congo's army leave hospitals overwhelmed with patients.

The United Nations declared 2025 as the International Year of Glaciers’ Preservation to promote awareness about the role of glaciers, snow and ice. The climate system and global hydrological cycle are dependent on accumulated water in solid form as glaciers, snow and ice. Because of the global temperature rise and its impact on the Earth’s […]

Police were called to the scene as the lawmakers tussled with each other and damaged property.

A Rwandan spokesperson denies the charges, saying it is trying to prevent the conflict spilling over.

Rwanda and South Africa are launching rival bids to bring F1 racing back to Africa for the first time since 1993.

Sigrid Kaag, Senior Humanitarian and Reconstruction Coordinator for Gaza, briefs the Security Council meeting on the situation in the Middle East, including the Palestinian question. Credit: UN Photo

By Dawn Clancy
UNITED NATIONS, Jan 31 2025 (IPS)

Before the three-phased ceasefire deal—proposed by President Joe Biden and dragged over the finish line by the then-incoming Donald Trump administration—silenced the bombs and drones over Gaza and allowed for humanitarian aid to flow into the strip, there was United Nations Security Council Resolution 2720.

Adopted on December 22, 2023, and tabled by the United Arab Emirates, the resolution was created to streamline and accelerate the delivery and distribution of much-needed humanitarian aid to civilians in Gaza. However, critics of the resolution say that a lack of political will and cooperation from the Israeli government and COGAT, the aid coordination arm of Israel’s military—identified by UN bodies and aid organizations on the ground in Gaza as the primary obstruction to aid delivery and distribution—paralyzed the implementation of the resolution’s mandate, unnecessarily prolonging the suffering of Palestinian civilians in the battered and bloodied enclave.

COGAT did not respond to a request for comment.

The resolution also tasked Secretary-General António Guterres to appoint a senior humanitarian and reconstruction coordinator to expedite the mandate and to “establish a UN mechanism for accelerating the provision of humanitarian relief.” For that role, he chose Sigrid Kaag of the Netherlands. She officially started the job on January 8, 2024.

“There are thousands of trucks [with humanitarian aid] trying and failing” to enter Gaza, said Lana Nusseibeh, the UAE’s ambassador to the UN, in her remarks to the Council before the vote in December 2023. “Unless we take drastic action, there will be famine in Gaza.” The situation for Palestinians, she added, is “desperate” and “unbearable.”

In the name of self-defense and security, Israeli Deputy Permanent Representative to the UN, Jonathan Miller, told Council members after resolution 2720 was adopted that Israel “will not change” its approach to the delivery and distribution of aid. In stark contrast to Nusseibeh’s warning of a looming famine in the strip, Miller said, “Hundreds of truckloads of aid enter Gaza every day… the only roadblock for aid entry is the UN’s ability to accept them.”

But Kaag chipped away at Miller’s claim in her first public briefing to the Security Council on April 24, 2024—her first official briefing was a closed session with Security Council members on January 30, 2024—which followed an Israeli airstrike on a World Central Kitchen (WCK) aid convoy in Gaza that killed seven aid workers on April 1.

Notably, before the WCK strike, leadership at the highest levels of the UN recognized the dire humanitarian situation in Gaza. Secretary-General Guterres described the humanitarian situation as “appalling.” And Martin Griffiths, the former UN relief chief, told the Security Council that “providing humanitarian assistance across Gaza is almost impossible.”

Jeremy Konyndyk, the president of Refugees International, in a televised interview, called out Israel for “actively blocking humanitarian groups” from getting into northern and southern Gaza. “What we need to see is the opening of border crossings,” said Konyndyk. “We need to see Israel doing much more to facilitate humanitarian action.”

Meanwhile, the “tragic” and unintentional WCK military strike—as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu described it in a video statement—drew heaps of condemnation and criticism from the international community, prompting Netanyahu, after a call with Biden, to make commitments to improve Israel’s approach to humanitarian aid in Gaza, which Kaag noted in her remarks on April 24. Some of these steps included an increase in the volume of aid crossing into Gaza, the temporary opening of the Erez crossing and the opening of Ashdod port for humanitarian goods.

“There’s still a lot of work to be done,” Kaag told reporters after the council meeting. She added that her mandate “requires the full cooperation of the Israeli authorities.”

However, three months after the WCK military strike, on July 29, 2024, while briefing reporters at UN headquarters in New York from Amman, Jordan, Kaag, who had just returned from a trip to Gaza, described the situation as “absolutely catastrophic” and the level of destruction as “almost incomprehensible.” When Kaag returned to New York to brief the Council on September 16, her assessment grew darker.

“Effective humanitarian operations require the right quality, quantity and a broad range of goods to meet the daily needs of civilians in Gaza. That goal is not being met.” She added that the breakdown of law and order and looting of supplies “are additional significant impediments to the UN operations in Gaza. “The operating conditions for humanitarian workers include denials, delays, a lack of safety and security and poor logistical infrastructure. This continues to hamper relief operations,” she said.

Contrary to Kaag’s briefing, Danny Danon, Israeli Ambassador to the UN, in his remarks to the council, described Israel’s humanitarian efforts as “unparalleled” for a country that was forced to go to war.

“We have gone above and beyond our obligations, aiming to improve the well-being of a civilian population embedded within the enemy,” he said. Less than a month later, on October 6, 2024, the Israeli military laid siege to north Gaza, complicating Resolution 2720’s mandate by prohibiting aid deliveries, including food and other essential supplies and trapping upwards of 65,000 Palestinians.

“We have been collectively killing ourselves to establish systems, negotiate, to get dual-use items in, to assist children that are deaf, to get their hearing aids… we’ve established the systems, the teams, the mechanism, the database, we’ve organized the suppliers,” Kaag told reporters in New York on December 10, 2024. “But there’s no substitute for political will. You can’t “ask humanitarians to do more.”

On January 17, 2025, the UN’s press office announced the temporary appointment of Kaag as special coordinator for the Middle East peace process. According to the statement, her new role “will be concurrent” with her present mandate as Gaza’s senior humanitarian and reconstruction coordinator.

Notably, as Kaag worked to implement her mandate to increase and streamline aid into the Gaza Strip, the International Court of Justice (ICJ)—the judicial body of the United Nations—ordered Israel on January 26, 2024, to take steps to prevent genocide in Gaza, including taking all measures within its power to provide adequate access to food, water, fuel, shelter and medical supplies to civilians in Gaza. The Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC) issued reports of imminent famine in Gaza. Human Rights Watch (HRW) issued a report that detailed how Israeli authorities have “deliberately obstructed Palestinians’ access to the adequate amount of water required for survival.”

Amnesty International published a report on December 5, 2024, concluding that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza by “failing to facilitate meaningful access within Gaza so others, particularly humanitarian organizations, could deliver essential services and life-saving supplies.” And on November 21, 2024, the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and his former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant for crimes against humanity and the “war crime of starvation as a method of warfare.”

Additionally, a recent ProPublica investigation revealed that two humanitarian agencies within the US government had concluded last spring that “Israel had deliberately blocked deliveries of food and medicine into Gaza.” The investigation claims that former US Secretary of State Antony Blinken rejected the agency’s findings.

Despite multiple attempts by IPS to interview a variety of humanitarian aid organizations on the implementation of resolution 2720 and its impact on the ground in Gaza—including whether Kaag has effectively executed her ongoing mandate and whether Israel played a primarily obstructive role in the process—some, due to the issue’s sensitivity, declined to speak on the record.

A spokesperson for Islamic Relief did, however, provide IPS with an email statement.

“UN resolution 2720 did not deliver on its mandate to get more humanitarian aid to people in Gaza. It should have led to a massive surge in aid, but instead the amount of aid getting into Gaza decreased even further. Israel has continued to use starvation and denial of aid as a weapon of war, violating international law and UN resolutions with complete impunity.”

A series of humanitarian access snapshot reports published by a group of international humanitarian organizations operating in Gaza also provides insight into the challenges aid workers face despite what Security Council Resolution 2020 has tried to accomplish. These include, according to available snapshots, denials and delays in the delivery of food, medical and building supplies, forced displacement of humanitarian staff and multiple incidents of the Israeli military targeting areas close to aid distribution sites.

After 15 months of war, President Biden, alongside the Trump administration, announced a three-phased ceasefire deal between Israel and Hamas, the armed group that attacked Israel on October 7, 2023. The deal’s first phase, which began on January 19, called for a surge in humanitarian aid to Gaza.

The UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) has reported that through “interactions with the Israeli authorities and the guarantors for the ceasefire deal,” 915 aid trucks crossed into the Gaza Strip on Monday, January 20, and 897 entered on Tuesday. OCHA estimates that a daily average of 76 trucks carrying humanitarian aid entered Gaza in December 2024. Currently, the flow of aid into Gaza and other critical supplies continues as the ceasefire appears to be holding. It updates humanitarian aid daily.

Still, the uptick in trucks entering Gaza, notably more than the 600 a day stipulated in the ceasefire agreement, has some wondering why aid has been so severely obstructed for the last 15 months.

“You can make the argument that it was more difficult to deliver supplies during Israel’s military campaign than it is during a ceasefire,” said Mouin Rabbani, a nonresident fellow at the Center for Conflict and Humanitarian Studies. However, he added that the sudden surge in aid “shows that there was a decision, a policy to starve the Gaza Strip.”

IPS UN Bureau Report

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');   Related Articles

• Seeds of Resilience Despite Massive Destruction in Gaza
• Will the UN’s Pact of The Future Modernize the World’s Outdated Multilateral Systems?

By External Source
Jan 31 2025 (IPS-Partners)

 
George the Pinta Island tortoise and Martha the passenger pigeon achieved fame as ‘endlings’ – the last individuals of their species. Their passing is tragic, but can their fate perhaps help us to protect other threatened species?

In this final episode of Season 4, Brit interviews Dr. Alexander Lees, from Manchester University in the UK, who has been working on Amazonian conservation issues for more than 20 years and has a particular interest in birdlife. Brit also hears from Joanna Lilley, a poet who uses verse to capture the beauty and tragedy of endlings.

To find out more about IPBES, head to www.ipbes.net or follow us on social media @IPBES.

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');  

By Jan Lundius
STOCKHOLM, Sweden, Jan 31 2025 (IPS)

On his first day in office, President Donald Trump signed an executive order withdrawing the U.S. from the World Health Organization (WHO) – a move experts say makes the U.S. and other countries less safe from infectious diseases and other public-health threats. It might thus be opportune to return to the global COVID 19 pandemic. Has the threat really gone away? Can something similar not erupt again?

Around the world, numerous scientific institutions store and experiment with deadly microbes and viruses. This is done for the benefit of humanity, but it might also have more macabre aspects. It has happened that deadly material leaked from laboratories; perhaps not too often, but the risk is always there. On 2 April, 1979, the city of Sverdlovsk (now Yekaterinburg), at the time with a population of over a million, was struck by an accidental release of anthrax bacteria, which officially killed at least 68 people (as in similar cases, this figure is likely to be a low estimate). Nevertheless, Soviet/Russian research on the development of chemical and biological weapons continued and, evidently, still does. The use of the radioactive nerve agent Novichok has drawn significant attention. Developed between 1971 and 1993, Novichok has reportedly been used on several occasions to poison and kill Russian dissidents.

A great amount of material from the infamous Japanese Unit 731 was after World War II brought to both the Soviet Union and the U.S. In the USSR it became the basis for the development of the Sverdlovsk facilities and in the U.S. it were brought to the Army Biological Warfare Laboratories at Fort Detrick in Frederick, Maryland, where it, just as in the USSR, were further developed. Strangely enough, the facilities at Fort Detrick were shut down in August 2019, only three months before the first cases of SARS-CoV-2 were reported from China. The reason for the closure was cited as “a risk of severe threats to public, animal, or plant health, as well as animal or plant products.” No further details were provided.

Unit 731 was a secret biological and chemical warfare research and development unit of the Imperial Japanese Army, where horrific human experimentation occurred – no one survived these experiments, which nevertheless was meticulously recorded by the researchers who performed them, leaving behind a vast documentation. Between 1936 and 1945, approximately 14,000 victims were murdered in Unit 731, established in occupied Manchuria, while at least 300,000 individuals died due to infectious illnesses originating from Unit 731 and spread across China.

So, what is currently happening within intensely guarded and well protected microbiological facilities around the world? First and foremost, vaccines and drugs are being developed to eradicate and cure a variety of often life-threatening diseases. However, like all research, this can also have its downsides. Ron Fouchier is known for his research on respiratory viruses; how they can mutate, and through zoonosis spread from animals to humans. His research is also evidence of how viruses and microbes can be manipulated and altered within a laboratory environment. In 2003, at the annual meeting of the European Scientific Working Group on Influenza, assembled microbiologists listened as Fouchier described how he had transferred avian (bird) influenza from one animal to another, thus making the virus significantly more contagious.

He mutated the genetic sequence of the avian virus in many different ways, until, as he later put it, “someone convinced me to do something really, really stupid.” He spread the virus by allowing it to mutate in the nose of a ferret and then implanted the animal’s nasal fluid into the nose of another ferret. After ten such manipulations, from one ferret to another, the virus spread by itself among the animals and within a few days killed most of them. Fouchier found five new mutations of the virus and then managed to combine them into a single super-virus, turning out to be far more deadly than the original avian virus. He had thus achieved something that could probably happen in nature, where a virus mutates when transferred from one animal to another and thus become increasingly deadly. What happens in nature can be done much faster and more efficiently in a laboratory. Fouchier’s virus is now securely stored in an underground facility in Rotterdam.

China is the country that so far suffered the most from biological warfare. When Unit 731 had been destroyed and some of its researchers captured by Russians and Americans, the Chinese might not have had much interest, or time, to focus on the scientific results of the Japanese Biological – and Chemical warfare programmes. The country was torn apart by violent fighting between Chiang Kai-shek’s republican forces and Mao Zedong’s communists. However, there were branches of Unit 731 in Chinese-controlled areas. Unit 731’s largest auxiliary facilities had been established in Beijing, Nanjing, and Guangzhou, and it is likely that Chinese forces succeeded in securing some of the material from these installations

After the war and the Communists’ victory, the Chinese Academy of Sciences’ facilities in Beijing became the centre for the country’s microbiological research and branches were soon established throughout China. Wuhan’s microbiological laboratory was founded in 1956 and initially focused on research concerning zoonotic transmission of viral diseases.

The so-called Hong Kong flu struck China in the summer of 1968 and spread to Hong Kong, where half a million people fell ill, and after the disease had spread worldwide more than a million people died. This served as a warning for the Chinese authorities, who, despite the general chaos reigning in the country, discreetly began cooperating with international epidemiologists. This cooperation deepened over the years. Wuhan’s laboratory developed an intimate collaboration and exchange with researchers from Galveston National Laboratory at the University of Texas, Canada’s National Microbiology Laboratory, and Centre international de recherche en infectiologie in Lyon, France.

The SARS virus, a group to which the deadly coronavirus belongs, first appeared in November 2002, causing a relatively mild epidemic, with about 8,500 cases, of which 800 died. It was a group of researchers from Wuhan’s Institute of Virology who found that China’s horseshoe bats were natural reservoirs for the SARS-like coronavirus. Wuhan’s researchers collected samples from thousands of horseshoe bats across China and isolated over 300 bat coronavirus sequences. In 2015, an international team, including two researchers from the Wuhan Institute, published their research results concerning the probability that a bat’s coronavirus could infect a human cell line. They had constructed a hybrid virus by combining a bat coronavirus with a SARS virus, which was then adapted to grow in mice and subsequently replicate human diseases. It was found that this hybrid virus could infect human cells.

We are still stuck with the question – where did SARS-CoV-2 originate? Can it be traced all the way back to Unit 731? Probably not. Did it come from a bat? It is very possible. Did it leak from Wuhan’s Institute of Virology? This continues to be an open question. The prestigious British scientific weekly journal Nature, stated in 4 December 2024 that most researchers now agree that SARS-CoV-2 finds its origins in animals. However, since the virus’ definitive origin has not yet been traced to any animal, some researchers continue to claim that the virus may have been developed in and then leaked – either by accident or intentionally – from Wuhan’s Institute of Virology.

In August of the same year, an editorial in the equally prestigious British medical journal The Lancet did in its monthly issue Lancet Microbe call for an end to all unscientific conspiracy theories about the virus leaking from Wuhan’s research laboratory, stating that “SARS-CoV-2 is a natural virus that found its way into humans through mundane contact with infected wildlife that went on to cause the most consequential pandemic for over a century. While it is scholarly to entertain alternative hypotheses, particularly when evidence is scarce, alternative hypotheses have been implausible for a long time and have only become more-so with increasing scrutiny. Those who eagerly peddle suggestions of laboratory involvement have consistently failed to present credible arguments to support their positions.”

The Lancet’s editorial writer continued to state that zealous attacks from amateurs might intimidate and even scare scientists, who are trying to objectively pursue their research.

“A worrying potential consequence of this saga is that it might have a chilling effect on the pursuit of answers in the future on both COVID-19 and new potential threats. With researchers unwilling to ask questions freely for fear of being persecuted when facts lead to inevitable refinement or revision of earlier conclusions.”

Accordingly, we have to let science continue to work undisturbed, though under supervision. However, this does not mean that we have to yield to unfounded conspiracy theories and leave global scientific cooperation. By leaving WHO, the U.S. is taking a first step on a dangerous road. This becomes even more worrisome while considering President Trump’s decision to nominate Robert F Kennedy Jr, a man without medical expertise and prone to believe in conspiracy theories, to become U.S. health secretary, overseeing everything from medical research to food safety and public welfare programmes. One of the mandates Trump will provide Kennedy with is to remove “corruption” from health agencies, whatever he might mean by that?

Main sources: Harris, Sheldon H. (2002) Factories of Death: Japanese Biological Warfare 1932-1945, and The American Cover-up. New York: Routledge, and Specter, Michael (2012) “The deadliest Virus”, The New Yorker, March 4.

IPS UN Bureau

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');  

A selection of the week's best photos from across the African continent and beyond.

A selection of the week's best photos from across the African continent and beyond.

A selection of the week's best photos from across the African continent and beyond.

Credit: Hivos. EU SEE

By Sarah Strack
JOHANNESBURG, Jan 31 2025 (IPS)

Across the world, civil society faces increasing pressure—from restrictive laws on civil society operations to digital surveillance, funding restrictions, and direct attacks on human rights defenders. In response, a global civil society coalition is stepping up. The newly launched European Union System for an Enabling Environment for Civil Society (EU SEE) spans 86 countries, equipping civil society actors, governments and other stakeholders with the data, tools, and resources needed to anticipate and respond in real time to shifts in the enabling environment—ensuring that civil society can thrive, freely express itself, and actively shape its context.

From Paraguay to Uganda, Indonesia to Botswana and Pakistan, the latest reports from civil society organisations paint a sobering picture of deteriorating operational environment and growing restrictions.

• In Paraguay, new legislation imposes excessive bureaucratic hurdles on CSOs, while 78% of citizens feel unrepresented in parliament and 84% believe elections are fraudulent.
• In Uganda, ahead of the 2026 elections, journalists and activists face increasing state repression, with the government using digital surveillance laws to stifle dissent.
• In Pakistan, authorities have blocked access to independent media, used the military court system to sentence 60 civilians, and restricted funding for NGOs deemed critical of the government.
• In Indonesia, anti-NGO rhetoric is rising, restrictive funding laws limit CSO resources, and police continue to suppress public protests.
• In Botswana, despite constitutional guarantees of free expression, civil society actors advocating for democratic reforms face harassment, and restrictive assembly laws limit peaceful protests.
• In Pakistan the not-for-profit status of NGOs has been withdrawn and now every income of NGOs even under grants from global charities is taxable unless the NGO applies for tax exemption and gets it approved every year. This process has opened new ways of corruption for Federal Bureau of Revenue Authorities. Local and national charities are also facing immense challenges to open their bank accounts. One of the Bank Manager in Balochistan province of Pakistan said “NGO Bank accounts are punishment for us”.

“Pakistani NGOs face immense challenges, not only from state-led systemic and structural barriers but also from social and cultural norms. We are constantly walking a double-edged sword to fight for our fundamental freedoms,” says Zia ur Rehman, Chair of the Pakistan Development Alliance, which is enhancing the Pakistan Civic Space Monitor through the EU SEE initiative.

This is a moment of reckoning for civil society. We cannot afford to wait for the grip to be tightened on civic freedoms and civil society’s environment. As we face multiple challenges and common struggles, no single organisation or sector can confront these issues alone. Now is the time to come together and build a diverse global coalition of defenders for civil society—a “united front” that harnesses data, innovation, and collaboration to protect and sustain an enabling environment for civil society worldwide.

As Intan Bedisa of the International NGO Forum on Indonesian Development (Infid) explains, “In many countries, the escalating issue of shrinking space for civil society organisations has arisen. EU SEE will be assisting civil society in both preventing and proactively addressing legal and policy changes that might affect civil society operations. This effort will include a series of actions, such as national-level monitoring, which will generate early warnings to provide timely support to those in need.”

Yet generating data alone is not enough—collective influence, and support from policymakers, donors, and the public are also needed to turn these insights into meaningful change.

Creating an enabling environment for civil society involves shifting laws, social attitudes, and resources that not only protect fundamental freedoms but actively facilitate civil society’s ability to operate effectively and sustainably. Within such an environment, civil society can engage in political and public life without fear of reprisals, openly express its views, and actively participate in shaping its context.

Country-specific insights on these dimensions can drive evidence-based advocacy, shape policy discussions, support civil society organisations refine their strategies, access flexible financial support mechanisms, and build solidarity networks at national, regional, and global levels.

“A vibrant and free civil society provides the very foundation from which we can address the world’s most pressing challenges,” says Mandeep Tiwana, interim co-Secretary General at CIVICUS. “Civil society is the heartbeat of democracy, the voice of the marginalised, and the catalyst for social justice. We must defend it with unwavering resolve.”

Policymakers, too, must rise to the challenge. The data and trends highlighted by monitoring systems like EU SEE serve as a springboard for governments to enact policies that protect and nurture civil society. This means committing to international frameworks that uphold freedom of expression, halting internet shutdowns, fight disinformation campaigns, surveillance abuses, and ultimately build accountability and support action.

International institutions and donors must align their funding and diplomatic efforts with the pressing needs identified by civil society monitoring initiatives. Funders must prioritise flexible, long-term support for civil society, ensuring organisations have the resources to resist crackdowns.

At the same time data and follow-up actions can be used by the media to uncover patterns of repression, highlight emerging threats and opportunities, and keep the microphone on at national and global levels – bringing these issues to the forefront of public discourse.

For those believing in the power of civil society, the choice before us is clear: either stand by as enabling environments deteriorate—whether in your own country or elsewhere—or take collective action. By leveraging data and closely examining global trends, let’s act together to push back against repression and build a world where civil society not only survives but thrives.

The EU System for an Enabling Environment for Civil Society (EU SEE) is a consortium of international organisations and Network Members. The civil society organisations that form this global partnership have a wealth of experience monitoring, protecting and strengthening the conditions that enable civil society to thrive. The initiative is implemented by: CIVICUS, Democracy Reporting International, European Partnership for Democracy, Forus, Hivos and Transparency International.

IPS UN Bureau

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');  

Excerpt:

Sarah Strack is Forus Director

Families begin their journey back home from the south of Gaza to Gaza City and the northern areas. 30 January 2025. Credit: UNICEF/Eyad El Baba

By James E. Jennings
ATLANTA, USA, Jan 31 2025 (IPS)

Either the new US President, Mr. Trump, is ignorant of international law or thinks he’s so brilliant that he doesn’t care about it. Either way, he seems to have stumbled into proposing an extension of Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s clearly documented crime of genocide by suggesting that somebody “clear out” the people in Gaza, in effect advocating the ethnic cleansing of the territory.

Ethnic cleansing violates international humanitarian law. It is a crime against humanity and constitutes a war crime. It is also listed as part of the supreme international crime of genocide. Population transfers such as “Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group” is one of the elements defining genocide.

The UN adopted the Genocide Convention 1948 and it went into effect in 1951. Among the punishable offenses are “acts committed with intent to destroy in whole or in part a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.”

Crimes punishable under the convention include “Conspiracy to commit genocide,” “Public advocacy to commit genocide“ and “attempt to commit genocide.” You don’t actually have to kill someone yourself, or directly order someone to do it.

On a plain reading of the convention, by publicly advocating that 1.5 million Palestinians should be transferred to Jordan or Egypt, Trump has already crossed the line of advocacy. If forcible transfers should actually happen, he is prima facie complicit.

Egyptian President al-Sisi and Jordan’s King Abdullah both announced opposition to the idea of sending the Palestinians to their territory. The King said that Jordan would not participate in such a plan, and President al-Sisi proclaimed that Egypt would not be part of an “unjust” solution.

They might have said, “Don’t you realize, you idiot, that you are advocating one of the key elements of genocide—transferring people, especially children. from one group to another group?”

According to the Genocide Convention, “conspiring to commit” genocide and “publicly advocating” genocide are equally punishable under international law as the crime itself. Genocide, which involves proving intent, is a high threshold to meet in court, but ethnic cleansing requires only that the crime be documented as having happened.

Mr. Netanyahu, who can only be pleased that the supposedly most powerful person in the world is doing his bidding, is already under indictment for war crimes and crimes against humanity by the International Criminal Court, which has now issued arrest warrants for him.

Why doesn’t somebody just ask the Palestinians if they want to leave and where they want to go? Most have proclaimed for more than 75 years that they want to go back to their original homes in Palestine (now Southern Israel) that they were forced out of by Israeli troops in 1948.

If not that, most have said they want to rebuild Gaza and stay there, as difficult and nearly impossible as that prospect is. Gazans have pride in their heritage and homeland, and are firm in their belief in sumud in Arabic—“steadfastness.” They refuse to give up the dream of a national homeland of their own in Palestine.

The reality of what they face in a 90% destroyed environment is daunting in the extreme. Humanitarian aid is urgently needed, and will be for the foreseeable future. However, every person has the right to make choices about where they want to live.

No would-be dictator like America’s chief executive can decide their future for them.

James E. Jennings PhD is President of Conscience International and a longtime advocate for Palestinian Human and Civil Rights.

IPS UN Bureau

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');  

Several hundred well-paid foreign soldiers fighting on the side of the Congolese government surrender.

Several hundred well-paid foreign soldiers fighting on the side of the Congolese government surrender.

Several hundred well-paid foreign soldiers fighting on the side of the Congolese government surrender.

A mother and her children are seen wading through a cloud of smoke at the Dandora dumpsite, Kenya's largest open landfill. Credit: Jackson Okata/IPS

By Felix Dodds and Chris Spence
SAN FRANCISCO, California / APEX, North Carolina, Jan 30 2025 (IPS)

When it comes to climate change, the awful news has been coming thick and fast. We now know that in 2024, the Earth’s average temperature exceeded 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels for the first time.

Extreme weather seems to be multiplying, with shocking fires in Los Angeles and storms striking Europe and America’s east coast since the start of the year. U.S. President Donald Trump has announced his country will turn its back on the ambitious Paris Agreement adopted in 2015.

Meanwhile, the United Nations’ latest annual summit—COP29 in Azerbaijan—ended in November with complaints it had done too little to change the narrative. Some even questioned whether the UN’s ongoing exertions were a waste of time, and whether annual global climate summits were still worth doing?

Are things really so bad? Let’s break down the news piece-by-piece and look at each issue in turn.

 

How bad is it that we have broken the 1.5C ceiling?

It’s pretty bad. It means we can expect extreme weather like heatwaves, wildfires, droughts, and flooding to increase in frequency and severity. It’s also going to affect food production, harm many plant and animal species, and risk sending the world over several “tipping points”, such as faster melting of ice in the Arctic, Antarctic, and elsewhere, causing sea-level rise. If you don’t like that our weather is getting more extreme, then sadly it’s too late. We’ll all have to get used to it, and adapt accordingly.

One piece of good news lost among all the big, bad headlines relates to the leadership at COP30. Ambassador André Corrêa do Lago has been chosen as president of COP30. He played a significant role in the Rio+20 negotiations and has been one of Brazil’s top civil servants for many years. His expertise when it comes to climate change and COPs is impressive

That said, it’s not all doom and gloom. There are some silver linings. First, the world has actually been doing a lot to fight back. Partly prompted by major international treaties like the Kyoto Protocol and Paris Agreement, countries have been actively finding ways to reduce emissions, such as investing in green technologies and working on new policies that affect pretty much everything we do.

Whether it’s new energy efficiency programmes in our homes and offices, efforts to protect our forests, or the rise in hybrid and electric vehicles, a lot is happening. Perhaps the biggest transformation has been the growth of solar and wind power, which is now considerably cheaper and more efficient that earlier sources of electricity like coal or natural gas. The pay-off is clear, with countries like the UK, Sweden, and Denmark already cutting their greenhouse gas emissions in half since the 1990s.

Another silver lining of our efforts to cut emissions is expert projections for temperature rise in the longer term. Before the Paris Agreement, some were predicting temperatures to go up by 4-6C by 2100, which would be catastrophic for humanity and the planet; an extinction event for modern civilization. Now, the estimates sit around 2-2.8C, depending on whether countries honour the goals they’ve set themselves. These numbers are still bad, but nowhere near as terrifying as they were.

So yes, 1.5 is bad and we will need to redouble our efforts to make sure it doesn’t get much worse. But we shouldn’t give up hope just yet.

 

What does President Trump’s decision to leave the Paris Agreement mean?

No one can deny that U.S. leadership greatly helps our global efforts to combat climate change.

Still, there are several reasons why we shouldn’t panic. First, as mentioned above, the world is already on a long-term path to cut emissions. The new U.S. administration may wish to “drill, baby, drill,” but renewables will continue to rise. Why? Because they’re cheaper than the alternatives. As an experienced business leader, President Trump knows as well as anyone that companies are motivated by profits. They will look for the most cost-effective energy option. In many cases, this will mean renewable energy.

Secondly, even if the U.S. does leave Paris and change its domestic policies, there is an inertia in systems. The outgoing Biden administration, which had pledged $3 billion for the UN’s Green Climate Fund (GCF), has already handed over $2 billion. They’ve also spent much larger amounts on supporting the U.S. transition to a green economy. This is money the new President will not be able to take back. Plus, a country as big and powerful as America can’t turn its entire economy around overnight. For instance, during President Trump’s first term, emissions in the U.S. continued to fall, even if he himself did not support this.

Thirdly, even American presidents aren’t all powerful. There are many other interests and alternative viewpoints in the U.S. Others who might disagree with President Trump will likely step up and try to fill the gap. For instance, business leader Michael Bloomberg has just announced that he will help cover U.S. financial obligations to the UN and its climate work. There is precedent for this, too. Back in the 2000s, a lot of progress was made on climate change at the state and city level throughout the U.S., even though President George W. Bush generally didn’t support it.

Finally, there has been a shift in the centre of gravity when it comes to climate change. The U.S. remains important, but on climate change it matters less than it once did. Under Presidents Obama, Biden, and Trump himself, U.S. emissions have fallen. They now represent about 11% of the global total, down from 30% in 1970. These days, U.S. emissions are dwarfed by the BRICS nations (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa). These are the countries whose leadership will be needed in the decade to come.

 

There are signs that big corporate players are also turning away from their climate pledges. For instance, Blackrock just left the Net Zero Asset Managers coalition. What does this mean?

The Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero (GFANZ) was announced at COP26 in 2021. It brings together corporate leaders from the financial services sector to support the transition to an ambitious “net-zero” emissions economy. However, after the recent U.S. election, some big U.S. banks left the Net Zero Banking Alliance, which is part of GFANZ. Now, Blackrock has left a similar coalition for asset managers; which is also a part of GFANZ.

This is not good news. It probably marks a symbolic victory for politicians who had been pressuring big corporate interests to step back from their climate pledges. In some ways, it mirrors the recent abandonment by several big American companies of their DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) programmes.

At this stage, it is hard to know how much of a genuine impact this will have. For every company trying to appease the Trump administration by backtracking, it is likely there will also be those—like insurance companies—whose profits are being so badly impacted by climate change that they will be unlikely to change their positions.

 

The latest UN climate summit brought no major breakthroughs but it did achieve some modest successes. Credit: Shutterstock.

 

Was COP29 really a failure?

No. Although the latest annual UN climate summit didn’t result in any big breakthroughs, it did achieve some modest successes. For instance, wealthy industrialized nations agreed to increase annual funding for developing countries from US$100 billion to US$300 billion annually by 2030. This is far less than the US$1.3 trillion many experts believe is needed to combat climate change, though that number was included as a goal for 2035. Although US$300 billion is an improvement on the previous amount, it’s not what developing countries were hoping for, which was closer to $500 billion by 2030.

Other outcomes from COP29 include agreement on standards for carbon markets, which means carbon trading is likely to increase and new finances might flow to the Global South. What’s more, several countries announced that they would strengthen their pledges—known as Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs)—under the Paris Agreement. These included Azerbaijan, Brazil, the UK, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE).

Shouldn’t COP29 have done a lot more, given the urgency of the climate crisis? As we have noted in an earlier article for IPS (“Are Climate Summits a Waste of Time?”), the UN climate process is designed to help us make incremental progress, year after year, decade after decade.

And it has. It may seem like the pace of change is too slow—and it often is—but the UN has kept the ball moving over many, many years, and can take credit for helping us forward much more than we realize.

 

Isn’t Azerbaijan an oil producer? Why hold meetings on climate change in fossil fuel states?

Yes, it is. In fact, many countries that have hosted the annual UN climate summit in the past have also been fossil fuel states. These include the UAE, UK, Poland, South Africa, India, and Indonesia. In fact, Poland (a major coal producer), has hosted the climate COPs three times!

Why is this? The hosting of the COPs is decided by the relevant regional groupings of the UN. So, each region gets its turn every few years to decide who hosts.

The fact is, many countries produce fossil fuels, and often these are the ones with the financial and organizational capacity to host large events like a UN summit. As we have argued in the past (“Global Cooperation on Climate Change: What Have We Achieved and What Needs to Happen Next?”), we believe hosts should be judged not on their fossil fuel status, but on whether the annual COP they host is a success.

If we judge the hosts by what the UN summits achieve, then fossil fuel countries have a mixed record. COP29 was not a breakout success, but the recent COPs in Egypt and the UAE achieved a surprising breakthrough, with agreement on a loss and damage fund. Also, some of these fossil fuel producers are slowly transitioning their economies away from selling oil, coal and gas. Azerbaijan, for instance, is promoting its tourism sector.

 

Are UN climate COPs still worth holding? Do they need to change?

As mentioned above, we believe UN climate summits are worth it, as they have helped the world make significant progress over the past thirty years. That said, some people think the COPs need to change how they operate. For instance, there were 65,000 people at COP29, but only a few thousand were actually involved in the UN negotiations. Isn’t this a sign something needs to be done differently?

We think the critics miss the point. While it’s true that the UN climate COPs have become large and unwieldy, they also serve many purposes. First, the world pays attention to these mega-events, which ratchet up the political pressure. Prime ministers, presidents, and other world leaders often attend, knowing the eyes of the world are on them. This, too, raises expectations and sometimes leads to better outcomes.

Not only that, but the COPs are often teeming with other folks from every sector and country, all eager to talk about what they are doing, listen to others, and build networks, coalitions, and alliances. Sometimes, these lead to powerful “coalitions of the willing”. The Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero (GFANZ) mentioned earlier is an example of this, as is the Global Methane Pledge, a coalition uniting 159 participating countries (and the European Commission) in pursuit of a goal to cut methane emissions 30 percent below 2020 levels by 2030.

On other occasions, participants can generate new ideas that eventually end up in the formal UN negotiations. Recent examples include discussions on agriculture and water management. Currently, it appears as if climate change in the context of oceans and human health may soon be added to the formal discussions.

Of course, the climate COPs could certainly be improved. For instance, the number of formal agenda items could be reduced, since the negotiations are now very complex. However, the UN COPs continue to serve an important function and should, in our opinion, include a wide range of stakeholders.

 

Moisés Savian, Brazil’s Secretary of Land Governance, Territorial and Socio Environmental Development at COP29. He looks forward to COP30 which will be held in his country. Credit: Umar Manzoor Shah/IPS

 

The next COP is taking place in Belém, Brazil in November 2025. What’s on the agenda, and what needs to happen before then?

The road to COP30 in Brazil lies through Bonn, Germany, which is the location for the annual preparatory meeting each June. UN climate watchers will be paying close attention to the two-week session in Bonn to see if we are on track to make any breakthroughs in Brazil.

The key issues where observers would like to see progress at COP30 include:

1. More countries coming to the table with ambitious pledges in the form of stronger NDCs;
2. Evidence that more funding is being mobilized to fight climate change, especially for the Global South;
3. Proof that countries are keeping their current promises under the Paris Agreement, or that they are at least taking steps to close any gaps;
4. Progress on using Nature-Based Solutions like forest restoration and sustainable land management; and,
5. Stronger private sector engagement, including avoiding any backsliding from major companies, and in particular from the financial sector.

We would also like to see evidence at COP30 that the recently-created Loss and Damage Fund is starting to have an impact, and that the role of oceans in climate change mitigation and adaptation is being taken more seriously.

 

Even though the situation is bad, is there still hope?

Yes. Despite the recent bad news, we remain optimistic. History shows we have made positive strides already. We are convinced now is the time to double down on global, collaborative efforts to combat climate change, and that the UN COPs provide important, regular milestones to meet, review our progress, and strengthen our pledges.

One piece of good news lost among all the big, bad headlines relates to the leadership at COP30. Ambassador André Corrêa do Lago has been chosen as president of COP30. He played a significant role in the Rio+20 negotiations and has been one of Brazil’s top civil servants for many years. His expertise when it comes to climate change and COPs is impressive. The appointment of such a consummate professional is a positive sign of how seriously the Brazilian government is taking its responsibilities as the COP30 host.

 

Prof. Felix Dodds and Chris Spence have participated in UN environmental negotiations since the 1990s. They co-edited Heroes of Environmental Diplomacy: Profiles in Courage (Routledge, 2022). Their next book, Environmental Lobbying at the United Nations: A Guide to Protecting Our Planet, is due for release in June 2025.

 

Excerpt:

With so much bad news about climate change lately, is it too late for the world to tackle the problem? Professor Felix Dodds and Chris Spence review the current state-of-play.

The victim was a 32-year-old nurse who died from multi-organ failure, the health ministry says.