Africa - INTER PRESS SERVICE

Wide shot of the site for displaced people hosted at Marie-Jeanne school in Port-au-Prince, where 7,000 people live in overcrowded and desperate conditions, seeking safety amidst the ongoing armed violence in Haiti. Credit: UNICEF/Patrice Noel

By Oritro Karim
UNITED NATIONS, May 8 2025 (IPS)

Following a series of brutal altercations in the communes of Mirebalais and Saut d’Eau in Haiti back in late March, local gangs have taken over both communes, spurring heightened displacement and insecurity. This is indicative of the continuing deterioration of the humanitarian situation in Haiti as these armed gangs expand their control beyond Port-au-Prince.

On May 2, the White House issued a statement that declared the Viv Ansamn and Gran Grif gangs as terrorist organizations, attributing the core of Haiti’s issues to their activities. U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio also emphasized the threats that these coalitions pose to Haitian and American national security.

“Their [the gangs’] ultimate goal is creating a gang-controlled state where illicit trafficking and other criminal activities operate freely and terrorize Haitian citizens. Terrorist designations play a critical role in our fight against these vicious groups and are an effective way to curtail support for their terrorist activities. Engaging in transactions with members of these groups entails risk in relation to counterterrorism sanctions authorities, not only for Haitians but also for U.S. lawful permanent residents and U.S. citizens,” said Rubio.

The United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) issued a report on April 29 that detailed the current conditions in the capital and the Centre Department. An attack in early April resulted in the escape of over 515 inmates at a Mirebalais prison. UNICEF states that the clashes in this region have led to numerous civilian deaths, multiple lootings, and the destruction of a police station.

On April 25, an operation was carried out by law enforcement in Mirebalais in hopes of regaining control of the Centre Department. It is believed that during this operation, eight armed individuals were killed and three firearms were seized. However, this operation was largely unsuccessful in eliminating gang presence in this area. Furthermore, Haitian officials have noted an attempt by the Viv Ansamn gang to gain control of the Devarrieux area, which borders the commune of Lascahobas.

According to UNICEF, heightened gang activity in the Centre Department has complicated relief efforts by humanitarian organizations. Currently, authorities have prohibited humanitarian organizations from accessing sections of the road that connect Hinche to Mirebalais, Lascahobas, and Belladère. Due to relatively stable security conditions between Hinche and Cange-Boucan-Carré, humanitarian movement has been approved between these communes.

The International Organization for Migration (IOM) has recorded over one million civilian displacements since the eruption of hostilities in 2023. In the Centre Department, IOM estimates approximately 51,000 civilian displacements, including 27,000 children.

Additional figures from IOM indicate that the Dominican Republic has considerably increased its rate of deportation of Haitian migrants. In the Belladère and Ouanaminthe communes, which are located along the borders between the two nations, over 20,000 Haitian migrants in April. This marks the highest monthly total recorded this year.
Humanitarian organizations have expressed concern over these deportations due to the highly vulnerable nature of these migrants. IOM reports that the majority of these populations consist of women, children, and newborns, who are disproportionately affected by gang violence.

“The situation in Haiti is becoming increasingly dire. Each day, deportations and gang violence worsen an already fragile situation,” said IOM Director General Amy Pope.

These deportations have compromised relief efforts as over 12,500 Haitian refugees are scattered across 95 newly established displacement shelters, the majority of which are bereft of basic services, such as food access, clean water, and healthcare. Due to increased gang activity in Mirebalais, IOM states that Belladère has essentially been isolated from the rest of Haiti.

“This is a compounded crisis spreading beyond the capital, with cross-border expulsions and internal displacement converging in places like Belladère,” said Grégoire Goodstein, IOM’s Chief of Mission in Haiti. “Delivering assistance is becoming increasingly difficult as humanitarian actors find themselves trapped alongside the very people they are trying to help.”

Additionally, Haiti’s healthcare system has been overwhelmed by recent surges in hostility. According to the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO), the healthcare system is particularly strained in Port-Au-Prince, where 42 percent of medical facilities remain closed. It is estimated that roughly 2 out of 5 Haitians urgently require access to medical care.

Sexual violence has also run rampant in Haiti. According to figures from the United Nations (UN), more than 333 women and girls have been subjected to gender-based violence from gang members, with 96 percent of these cases being rape. Furthermore, trafficking and forced recruitment remain common, especially in Port-Au-Prince.

Underfunding across multiple sectors has made it difficult for Haitian communities to access the tools they need to survive. Due to persisting structural barriers and societal taboos, many perpetrators of violence receive impunity. The amount of humanitarian aid is inadequate as relief teams are understaffed to handle the sheer scale of needs.

The Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) states that the 2025 Humanitarian Needs and Response Plan for Haiti is less than 7 percent funded, with only USD 61 million having been raised out of the USD 908 million required. The UN and its partners urge donor contributions as the situation continues to deteriorate.

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');  

Once a lifeline for women and families, the Afghanistan Family Guidance Association (AFGA)—one of the country’s oldest NGOs—has been forced to shut down its centers nationwide under Taliban orders. Credit: Learning Together.

By External Source
KABUL, May 8 2025 (IPS)

Rukhsar (pseudonym), 27, is a widow and sole breadwinner for a family of five. She recounts her life story under Taliban rule, a reality faced by thousands of women in Afghanistan.

Every time I picked up a pen, I would write about turning failure into success, rising up after falling, and the highs that follow life’s lows. Each time I wrote, my mood, soul, and mind came alive, fueled by the words of my achievements.

With every victory achieved and each milestone reached, I redoubled my efforts. Like a mountaineer dreaming of reaching the summit, my hope of realizing my dreams grew with each passing day.

But this time, my dreams have crumbled, and I am left defeated.

I, too, once had a stable life, but the winds of fate blew it apart. Shattering my dreams.

Exactly seven years ago, I began a relationship with a kind and brave person, Yusuf, who was my source of security while I in turn took care of patients in a hospital.  As nurses, our days were spent caring for the people of our country. We dedicated ourselves to our sacred duty with passion and enthusiasm.

It felt like being a woman in itself was a crime in Afghanistan. We could not study or go to the parks. Women were flogged on the mere of suspicion sleeping with anyone other than their husbands. Young girls were forced into marriage and women committed suicide. We are probably the most oppressed people in the history of Afghanistan

In the midst of life’s joys, Yusuf and I were blessed with two children, Iman and Ayat. They made our life shine brighter.

However, just when everything appeared to flourish, we began to hear rumblings in the distance. The Taliban had begun a fight to take back Afghanistan. We heard about districts falling in neighboring provinces such as Balkh, and the deaths, and disappearances of our loved ones. 

As the days passed by, the intensity of the war between the government and Taliban fighters increased. We were all in a state of panic, fearing that we could become victims of the conflict. The war was getting closer to the city with each passing moment.

One day Yusuf urged me not to go to work. He went instead. He kissed our children goodbye, tears in his eyes.  Thas was the last time we saw him alive.

After he left, I kept calling him at short intervals to ask if everything was fine with him, and each time he called back without delay. However, my call to him in the afternoon went unanswered; neither did he return the call. That triggered off restlessness in my mind. It soon took hold of me entirely and was no longer controllable.

At the peak of my desperation, and exhaustion, Yusuf’s father told me he had received a call from an unfamiliar number. Yusuf was no longer with us, he announced. He was brutally killed by a tyrannical, ruthless, bloodthirsty, and oppressive group.

The date is forever edged in my memory. It was June 16, 2021. 

The grief of losing Yusuf brought sleepless nights, memories that haunted me every moment, and a deep loneliness that nothing could fill. I was entrapped in emotional and mental struggles from which I could not escape.

Days and months went by, and problems kept piling up one after the other with no respite. There was no psychological support, I was caught midst of increasing financial struggles, and I constantly worried about how to provide for our children, which were now entirely under my care. I had to find a way out.

I returned to my former work place at the hospital in Mazar-i-Sharif, but someone new took up my place. I returned home empty-handed. All around me was despair and fear. 

All the while, I was under increasing pressure from my family to consider a second marriage. No one could really understand the pain I was enduring. My husband Yusuf was gone but his love was still alive. It was the only thing besides the children, which gave me hope. I started looking for work and eventually got one as a midwife at Afghanistan Family Guidance Association (AFGA), one of the oldest NGOs in Afghanistan.

It was in 2023. I had an eight-hour job and was now earning monthly salary of over 9,500 Afghanis, which enabled me to support my children and financially support my late husband’s parents as well. I was excited and nervous about the new phase in my life.

We provided services to the most vulnerable clients who were suffering from impact of earthquakes, floods, and drought.

Nevertheless, every day I heard news about how the Taliban regime was planning to shut down various organizations that support women and families, as well as banning women from schools and universities. At my workplace, we could foresee that thousands of families would soon be left without help.

A flood of bad news kept inundating us each day about measures that adversely affected women’s situation. It felt like being a woman in itself was a crime in Afghanistan. We could not study or go to the parks. Women were flogged on the mere of suspicion sleeping with anyone other than their husbands. Young girls were forced into marriage and women committed suicide. We are probably the most oppressed people in the history of Afghanistan.

However, my colleagues and I took comfort in the fact, that since we were working in the medical field as essential members of society, we assumed we were indispensable.

We still maintained high hopes that our work in the medical field would continue, even though officials from the brutal and oppressive unit, the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice, continuously monitored us. For one hour every Thursday, these officers would give us religious lessons as if we were not Muslim.

We were working mainly with women patients, yet we were made to cover our faces with masks and to maintain our hijabs. We were prohibited from speaking loudly, and from engaging in any conversation with the male companions of the patients. The restrictions kept increasing, but I had to stay strong for my family.

Despite all the bullying and oppression, we continued to work because serving our patients brought us peace of mind, not to mention the deep satisfaction and relief of being able to provide financial support to our families. 

On the morning of December 3, 2024, I heard the news about the closure of medical institutions. It was incredibly painful, like a dagger thrust into my heart. I spent the entire day in tears and sorrow. In the small shelter where I worked, we were all crushed by grief. 

That day passed by and we did not know how we had managed to get through it. We concluded to each other at the end of the day that, “We might be the last generation of medical professionals.”

On January 3rd, at 9:08 AM, I received a call from a colleague at the Kabul central office. She informed me that Mullah Hibatullah Akhundzada, the misogynist Taliban leader, had issued a decree to close down healthcentres funded by foreign donors. They were, according to him, aimed at curtailing the increase of the Muslim population.

My blood ran cold. My colleagues and I nevertheless entertained the hope that the decree would be reversed. It did not happen.

Just a week later, we were notified by email that AFGA had to close due to Taliban’s new restrictions.

At that moment, as I read the email, it felt like the ground had been cut from under my feet. My mind became consumed by thoughts of Ayat and Iman, wondering what to do next and which door to knock on.

I was not alone. Similar thoughts must have been coursing through the minds of 270 Afghan women working in 23 provinces. I also lost every shred of hope for the future. I had no idea what I could do next.

 

Excerpt:

The author is an Afghanistan-based female journalist, trained with Finnish support before the Taliban take-over. Her identity is withheld for security reasons

This village is half in India and half in Pakistan. In Pakistan it is called Chilhana; on the Indian side, it's called Teetwal. Credit: Zofeen Ebrahim/IPS

By Zofeen Ebrahim
KARACHI, Pakistan, May 8 2025 (IPS)

Just after the young couple arrived at Al-Sayyed Shabistan, a quaint guesthouse in Taobat, on April 30, soldiers showed up, urging them to leave—war, they warned, could break out any moment.

Yahya Shah, guest-house owner and head of Taobat’s hotel association, told IPS over the phone, “Tourist season just began, but for two weeks the village feels like a ghost town—everyone’s hit: shopkeepers, eateries, drivers.”

Just 2 km from the tense Line of Control (not a legally recognized international border, but a de facto border under control of the military on both sides between the Indian- and Pakistani-controlled parts of the former princely state of Jammu and Kashmir), Taobat sits where India’s Kishenganga river crosses into Pakistan—reborn as the Neelum.

Tensions spiked after a deadly April 22 attack in the Indian-administered Pahalgam by The Resistance Front, killing 26 people—25 Indians and one Nepali.

India blamed Pakistan for backing TRF, calling it a Lashkar-e-Taiba front. Pakistan denied involvement, urging an independent probe. Meanwhile, pressure mounted on the Indian prime minister, Narendra Modi, to respond forcefully, as the attackers remained at large two weeks later.

The question on everyone’s mind — including Michael Kugelman, a Washington, DC-based South Asia analyst — is, “How could such a horrific attack have been carried out on soft targets in one of the most heavily militarized regions in the world?”

Taobat is the last village of Neelum Valley and the place where the Kishenganga River enters Pakistani territory and is called the Neelum river. Credit: Zofeen Ebrahim/IPS

When India crossed the line

On May 7, early morning, the intensity of the animosity between the two since the Pahalgam attack took on a serious turn when India launched a full-fledged series of attacks on Pakistan and Pakistan-administered Kashmir.

India claimed it targeted “terrorist camps” in Pakistan, stating, “No Pakistani military facilities have been targeted.”

Pakistan’s armed forces have been authorized to take “corresponding actions” following the strikes, Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif’s office said following the attack.

The Indian attack killed 26 civilians, injuring 46. In addition, the Pakistani army reported downing five Indian jets. In retaliatory attacks by Pakistani forces, at least 10 people have been killed in Indian-administered Kashmir.

Reuters, quoting the local government on the Indian side, admitted that three fighter jets crashed in Jammu and Kashmir hours after India announced it had struck “nine Pakistani terrorist infrastructure sites across the border.”

The international community has called for restraint, with the United States urging the two sides to “keep lines of communication open and avoid escalation” the United Kingdom offering “in dialogue, in de-escalation and anything we can do to support that, we are here and willing to do…” United Nations’ Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said the international community could not “afford a military confrontation” between the nuclear-armed nations.

Tensions between India and Pakistan ripple across South Asia.

“A tense situation between Pakistan and India is always a cause for worry for others in the region,” said Reaz Ahmad, Dhaka Tribune’s editor, with over 30 years of writing about South Asian politics. Bangladeshis only “want both nations to stop the blame game and tit-for-tat actions that only worsen life for ordinary people.” These unfortunate events, said Ahmed, referring to the war-like situation, show the “people deserve far better from their leaders.”

Daily life in Taobat Bala, about 1.5 km from Taobat. The area isn’t populated; people may work in the area but live in Taobat. Credit: Zofeen Ebrahim/IPS

Closed gates, broken pacts

Following the Pahalgam attack, India and Pakistan shut borders, halted visas, expelled visitors, and downgraded missions—familiar moves in past standoffs. But this time, India suspended the 1960 water treaty, prompting Pakistan to threaten withdrawal from the 1972 Simla Agreement.

Dr. Moonis Ahmar, former chairman of the department of international relations at Karachi University, blamed leaders of both countries for “misguiding their people” and polarizing them by spewing so much vitriol. “What was the point of bringing in the unnecessary “jugular vein” conversation out of the blue?

 The ‘jugular vein’ debate

Recently, Pakistan’s army chief of staff, General Asim Munir’s characterization of Kashmir as Pakistan’s jugular vein at a diaspora event held just days before the Pahalgam tragedy, was considered provocative and a “trigger” for the massacre.

“But that is what it is, and the general only reiterated the stand taken by the Quaid,” defended Khawaja Muhammad Asif, the country’s defense minister, referring to the country’s founder, Muhammad Ali Jinnah.

Defining the jugular vein, Asif said Kashmir stirred both deep emotions and economic concerns. Recalling the lesser-known massacre of the partition, he said, “Thousands of Muslims were massacred in the Jammu region by mobs and paramilitaries led by the army of Dogra ruler Hari Singh,” adding that Muslim villagers from Jammu province were forced to evacuate to West Pakistan and were then accommodated in refugee camps in the districts of Sialkot, Jhelum, Gujrat, and Rawalpindi.

Asif, a native of Sialkot, emphasized that the economic significance of Kashmir cannot be overstated. “Kashmir is our lifeline—all our rivers, including the Jhelum, Sutlej, and even the smaller tributaries flowing through my own hometown, originate there,” he said, acknowledging that India’s recent announcement to withdraw from the pact posed a “real threat.”

Village life in Taobat Bala before the escalation of violence. Credit: Zofeen Ebrahim/IPS

What is the root of conflict?

Over the years many historians from both sides have unraveled the historical, political, and emotional fault lines dividing India and Pakistan since 1947. But Kashmir remains the stumbling block, 78 years later.

“At the time of British India’s partition in August 1947, the 565 princely states were given the option to join India, Pakistan, or remain independent—provided their people had the right to decide.” Jammu and Kashmir, a Muslim-majority state ruled by a Hindu king, Maharaja Hari Singh, initially chose to remain independent.

After tribal militias from Pakistan invaded parts of Jammu and Kashmir in October 1947—reportedly with covert support from Pakistani forces and encouragement from some local Muslims—the situation quickly descended into chaos and violence. Facing the threat, Maharaja Hari Singh signed the Instrument of Accession, ceding the state’s sovereignty to India in exchange for military assistance.

The Indian government, led by then Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, agreed to extend help but asked Hari Singh to sign an Instrument of Accession first. The Raja agreed. The documents conferred a special status on Jammu and Kashmir and allowed it to have its constitution, a flag, and control over internal administration, except in matters of defense, foreign affairs, finance, and communications, and were subsequently enshrined under Articles 370 and 35A of the Indian Constitution.

“These rules were not just legal provisions; they were a vital protection that ensured that no non-resident could purchase immovable property in the region, and this was done to safeguard the distinct identity, local ownership, and indigenous rights of the Kashmiri people,” explained Naila Altaf Kayani, an expert in Kashmir affairs, speaking to IPS from Muzaffarabad in Pakistan-administered Kashmir.

But even before 2019, especially between 1952 and 1986, and through 47 presidential orders, the historical guarantees under the Maharaja’s Instrument of Accession had slowly been diluted and J&K’s special status steadily diminished. “India effectively dismantled the State Subject Rules that had long been in place in Jammu and Kashmir,” said Kayani.

In 2019, India finally scrapped these articles completely, and J&K became a union territory (governed directly by the central government, unlike states, which have their own elected governments with significant autonomy).

Can India and Pakistan ever make peace?

Both Asif and Ahmar doubt the Kashmir dispute will be resolved in their lifetime. And till that doesn’t happen, the thorn in their side will keep pricking. But what the latter finds befuddling is the “unstable and unpredictable” Pakistan-India relationship. “The two countries swing between total silence and sudden warmth, with no steady, consistent engagement like most nations maintain,” he said.

Ironically, it’s during the lowest points in their relationship that both Indian and Pakistani leaders stand to gain the most politically, said Kugelman. “Delhi can bolster its tough-on-terror stand and reputation as a strong and defiant administration by responding with muscle, and in Pakistan, the civilian and military leaderships, which are not terribly popular, can shore up public support by rallying the country around it in the face of an Indian threat.”

Forgotten formula or a new peace plan?

Ahmar said this is the lowest point in India-Pakistan relations he has ever witnessed.

However, “if by some miracle General Pervez Musharraf’s out-of-the-box four-point formula gets a shot in the arm,” perhaps we can begin anew, on a friendlier note,” he said, referring to the July 2001 Agra summit, hosted by Indian Prime Minister Vajpayee.

The four fixes included a gradual demilitarization of troops from both sides; no change in borders but allowing the people of Jammu and Kashmir to move freely across the LoC; self-governance without independence; and a joint supervision mechanism in the region involving India, Pakistan, and Kashmir.

But until that happens, Ahmar said, it would be best to let the territory be put under international supervision until its fate is decided. “I would say, place the region under the Trusteeship Council of the United Nations for at least 10 years,” he said.

Comprising the five permanent UN Security Council members—China, France, Russia, the UK, and the US—the Trusteeship Council aims to guide territories toward self-government or independence, either as separate states or by joining neighboring countries. The last trust territory, Palau, gained independence in October 1994. “The Trusteeship Council may have completed its mission in Palau but continues to exist on paper, under the UN Charter, chapter XII,” added Ahmar.

Columnist Munazza Siddiqui, also executive producer at Geo News, a private TV channel, advocated for yet another option: “Turn the LoC into a Working Boundary (a temporary, informally demarcated line used to separate areas, often in disputed regions or during a ceasefire, but different from the LoC, which is a military control line; something in-between the LoC and an international border), similar to the one that exists between Pakistan’s Punjab and Indian-administered J&K, as recognized under UN arrangements.

“The idea is to then shift focus towards bilateral cooperation in other areas,” she pointed out, adding, “This approach can hopefully help de-escalate the violence historically associated with the Kashmir issue.”

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

• Kashmir Reels After Pahalgam Attack, Fear Long Term Impacts on Livelihoods
• Pakistan: Freedom of Expression at Stake With New Cybercrime Law
• Malala: ‘Honest Conversations on Girls’ Education Start by Exposing the Worst Violations’

Karla Quintana (centre), head of the Independent Institution on Missing Persons in Syria, visits Al Marjeh Square in Damascus, a place where families of missing persons display photos in the hope of finding their loved ones. Credit: IIMP Syria

By Louis Charbonneau
May 8 2025 (IPS)

Major-power cutbacks and delayed payments amidst conflict and insecurity are testing the very principles and frameworks upon which the international human rights infrastructure was built nearly 80 years ago.

Human rights need defending now more than ever, which is why the United Nations leadership needs to ensure that its efforts to cut costs don’t jeopardize the UN’s critical human rights work.

The Trump administration’s review of US engagement with multilateral organizations and its refusal to pay assessed UN contributions—which account for 22 percent of the UN’s regular budget—have pushed the cash-strapped international organization into a full-blown financial crisis.

China, the second biggest contributor, continues to pay but has been delaying payments, exacerbating the UN’s years-long liquidity crisis. With widespread layoffs looming, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has been forced to dig deep for cost-saving measures.

A six-page memo seen by Human Rights Watch—entitled “UN80 structural changes and programmatic realignment” and marked as “Strictly Confidential”—outlines proposals for eliminating redundancies and unnecessary costs across the UN.

The proposals include consolidating apparently overlapping mandates, reducing the UN’s presence in expensive locations like New York City, and cutting some senior posts.

While some UN80 proposals have merit, the section on human rights is worrying. It suggests downgrading and cutting several senior human rights posts and merging different activities. But at a time when rights crises are multiplying and populist leaders hostile to rights are proliferating, any reduction of the UN’s human rights capacities would be shortsighted.

Efficiency and cost-effectiveness are important, but the UN’s human rights work has long been grossly underfunded and understaffed. The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights gets just 5 percent of the UN’s regular budget.

Countless lives depend on its investigations and monitoring, which help deter abuses in often ignored or inaccessible locales. Investigations of war crimes and other atrocities in places like Sudan, Ukraine, Israel/Palestine, and elsewhere are already struggling amidst a UN-wide hiring freeze and pre-Trump liquidity shortfall.

For years, Russia and China have lobbied to defund the UN’s human rights work. There is now a risk that the United States, which has gutted its own funding for human rights worldwide, will no longer oppose these efforts and will instead enable them.

During these trying times, the UN should be reminding the world that its decades-long commitment to human rights is unwavering.

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:

Louis Charbonneau is UN director, Human Rights Watch

Sahrawi refugees walk near the Awserd Refugee Camp in the Tindouf Province of Algeria. Credit: UN Photo/Evan Schneider

By Oritro Karim
UNITED NATIONS, May 7 2025 (IPS)

Since the Western Sahara War in 1975, Sahrawi refugees have resided in a collection of refugee shelters in the Tindouf province of Algeria. For over 50 years, these communities have struggled to develop self-sufficiency and have been solely dependent on humanitarian aid for survival, marking one of the most protracted refugee crises in the world.

According to figures from the United Nations Regional Information Center in Western Europe (UNRIC), roughly 173,600 individuals reside across five camps in Tindouf, Algeria. These populations consist of the original Sahrawi refugees who fled persecution from Moroccan forces, and their descendants. These communities are unable to return to the Western Sahara due to Morocco’s control over a vast majority of the disputed territory.

On May 6, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) issued a response plan that detailed the current humanitarian situation impacting the Sahrawi refugees in Algeria. Despite having been one of the longest standing refugee crises, the United Nations (UN) had never issued a consolidated plan until 2024.

Due to factors such as the COVID-19 pandemic, the global reduction of foreign aid, and the war in Ukraine, the humanitarian situation in the Tindouf refugee shelters has deteriorated significantly in the past few years. Sahrawi refugees currently struggle to survive with a host of underfunded, basic services such as food access, education, and healthcare.

According to UNHCR, food insecurity has been a long-standing pinnacle of this humanitarian crisis since its inception. Despite the Algerian government’s attempts to consolidate the 30 percent reduction in food rations due to cuts in humanitarian aid, it is estimated that approximately 90 percent of households are unable to access adequate amounts of food. Roughly 30 percent of the Sahrawi refugee population is food insecure and an additional 58 percent is at risk of becoming food insecure.

The World Food Programme (WFP) states that the Tindouf camps are unable to develop self-sufficiency in food production due to the harsh and isolated deserts of westernmost Algeria, as well as intense heatwaves and water scarcity, which are results of the worsening climate crisis. Anemia is estimated to affect over 50 percent of young children and women of reproductive age.

Additionally, global acute malnutrition affects roughly 11 percent of all children aged 6 to 59 months. Poor diets and a lack of nutritional assistance has led to a host of health problems for these communities, including mineral and vitamin deficiencies, as well as increased rates of obesity in women.

Figures from the United Nations Sustainable Development Group (UNDSG) show that one in three children in the Tindouf camps experience stunted growth and only one in three children receive the nutritional assistance that they need to have healthy development. Additionally, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the scale of needs in the food security sector has compounded significantly, nearly doubling from the 19.8 million dollars required in pre-pandemic times.

Despite the growing scale of needs for food assistance, UNHCR reports that 100 percent of school-aged children are enrolled in feeding programs. The education sector is currently a major priority for humanitarian organizations. According to a press release from the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), only half of the students recorded at the end of the 2022 school year met the locally-established minimum threshold for learning, indicating that a significant amount of students in the Tindouf camps were not able to effectively retain information.

This can likely be attributed to the host of other issues plaguing Sahrawi communities. According to the U.S. Committee for Refugees and Migrants, due to limited educational and economic opportunities in the Tindouf camps, the new generation of refugees faces increased levels of disillusionment and anxiety, which could lead to increased insecurity and regional tensions in the future.

UNHCR reports that due to severe flooding in September 2024 in Dakhla, Western Sahara, a significant amount of essential healthcare and education infrastructures in Algerian refugee camps have been damaged. Sahrawi refugees are able to access 31 dispensaries and 6 hospitals. Although 100 percent of Sahrawi refugees have free access to primary healthcare services, the healthcare system in the Tindouf camps remains fragile and is critically dependent on humanitarian aid to remain functional.

Perhaps the biggest issues plaguing the Sahrawi healthcare system at the moment are a lack of monetary motivation for healthcare personnel, a significant shortage of medicines and materials, and a host of logistical issues. UNHCR is currently on the frontlines of this crisis distributing essential supplies and assisting doctors and nurses in the most affected areas.

Additionally, Sahrawi refugees have found it difficult to campaign for increased governmental support from the Western Sahara due to repressive tactics from Moroccan forces. According to a press release from Amnesty International, in January 2024, the police violently intercepted a peaceful protest by female Sahrawi activists in Laayoune, subjecting protestors to assaults and beatings.

In February, the police shut down a press conference that was conducted by Sahrawi Human Rights Defenders Collective (CODESA) in Laayoune. In April, Moroccan authorities bulldozed the homes of 12 Sahrawi families in Al-Jitir without providing any prior notice or means of relocation.

Despite the Sahrawi refugee population having shown immense resilience amid five decades of protracted crisis, programs that provide lifesaving aid for these communities have been severely underfunded. UNHCR’s Sahrawi Refugees Response Plan 2024-2025 estimates that roughly USD 214 million will be required to address needs in 2025. The UN is strongly urging donor contributions to meet this quota.

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');  

By CIVICUS
May 7 2025 (IPS)

 
CIVICUS speaks about democratic decline in the USA with humanitarian and civil society activist Samuel Worthington, former president of the US civil society alliance InterAction and author of a new book, Prisoners of Hope: Global Action and the Evolving Roles of US NGOs.

The USA has been added to the CIVICUS Monitor Watchlist due to rising concerns about civic freedoms under Donald Trump’s second administration. Since January 2025, executive orders have driven sweeping personnel changes across federal agencies, particularly in the Justice Department. USAID has undergone dramatic restructuring, with funding cuts severely impacting on civil society organisations (CSOs) that support excluded groups across the world. Protests – particularly those addressing immigration and Israel’s war on Gaza – face heightened scrutiny and restrictions. Against this backdrop, civil society is mobilising to preserve democratic principles and civic engagement.

Samuel Worthington

How would you characterise the current state of US democracy?

The USA is experiencing what can only be described as a technocratic coup, rooted in far-right authoritarian ideology. The Trump administration is using every tool at its disposal, even if that means ignoring and breaking laws. The goal is speed: to use technology, claims of waste and abuse, combined with actions that dismantle institutions and attack individuals and organisations.

The Trump administration has adopted a typical authoritarian playbook, similar to that used by leaders such as Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, but at a much greater scale and speed that has taken many by surprise. A prime example is the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), which uses computer systems to cripple organisations, create lists of ‘illegal’ individuals for targeting and dismantle protections for civic freedoms. Trump is attempting to centralise power in a 21st-century US variant of fascism, backed by a white nationalist ideology and largely based on Project 2025.

Civil society and institutions were not prepared for this level of attack. Many assumed democracy was more resilient and norms would hold. Instead, we are now witnessing core democratic institutions under assault. For the first time, we are seeing explicit federal government-driven censorship, with official lists of banned words. The administration is systematically attacking diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives and withholding funds to punish noncompliant universities and institutions.

Trump is weaponising public money as leverage – even blackmail – to force organisations and US states to comply with his ideology. While pushback from the courts is increasing, this resistance has led to Trump’s attacks on the judiciary. The administration is also limiting media access to outlets that don’t align with its ideology.

As with all forms of fascism, there must be a scapegoat, and here, it’s migrants and transgender people. The Trump administration labels migrants as ‘illegals’ and mass deportations target anyone who doesn’t fit its narrow definition of who is an American. Changes to the constitution are being proposed to strip citizenship rights from US-born children of undocumented parents. Random arrests, disappearances and militarised threats against migrants are becoming increasingly common.

All of this has transpired in just the first hundred days. Democracy’s core institutions — civil society, media, Congress, the judiciary — and the rule of law itself are under enormous stress. The USA is in the midst of a profound constitutional crisis.

How has USAID’s restructuring impacted on civil society?

USAID served as the administration’s test case for destroying a government agency. DOGE destroyed USAID by disabling its computer systems, stopping funding and cancelling contracts. Under the constitution, only Congress has the authority to control appropriations or close government agencies. Even when courts ruled against the administration and ordered programmes to restart, the damage was irreversible: USAID’s systems had already been dismantled by DOGE and could not be easily rebuilt.

Many CSOs that relied heavily on USAID funding lost between 30 and 80 per cent of their resources, leading to mass layoffs, office closures and collapsed partnerships. Fortunately, the USA has a strong tradition of private philanthropy amounting to around US$450 billion a year, with over US$20 billion directed internationally. This private funding is helping some organisations survive. Many are now reorganising around private donors and preparing for the possibility that foundations themselves could become targets of future attacks.

Some CSOs are considering transforming into businesses to protect themselves. Others are fighting back through lawsuits. Some are trying to stay quiet in the hope of being overlooked — not a healthy strategy, but an understandable one. For most, simply trying to survive has become the primary focus.

What global implications are resulting from these domestic developments?

Global civil society has long been critical of the USA, but there was still an assumption that it remained committed to the values of democracy, freedom and global cooperation. This assumption has now been shattered.

The US government is no longer promoting democracy abroad. Instead, it is openly supporting authoritarian regimes and undermining civil society efforts worldwide. Both domestically and internationally, it is actively restricting independent civic action.

The dismantling of USAID alone will cost millions of lives. The USA once provided around half of global humanitarian resources. With this pullback, we’re already witnessing mass deaths and growing risks of famine. Essential supplies of medicines, including HIV/AIDS treatments, are being cut, putting millions more lives at risk.

As the USA disengages and retreats from its global leadership role, it leaves a vacuum, likely to be filled by authoritarian powers such as China and Russia. They will try to reshape the global system in ways that threaten human rights and democratic values.

Finally, the administration’s rhetoric about annexing Canada and seizing Greenland is eroding the post-Second World War rules-based international order, which was established specifically to prevent territorial expansion. By undermining these norms, the USA is effectively encouraging other authoritarian-leaning states to expand through force.

How are people responding to these challenges?

As Trump’s authoritarianism intensifies, people are mobilising to defend democracy and resist repression. Three major protest movements have emerged: the broad-based ‘Hands Off’ movement against fascism and in defence of democracy, student protests focused on Gaza and Palestine and the growing resistance to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) deportations.

Protesting against ICE or in solidarity with Gaza has become increasingly dangerous. Citizens may face serious criminal charges simply for joining protests, and non-citizens risk prison and deportation. The case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia illustrates this reality: after living in Maryland for 13 years and with legal protection, he was forcibly deported to El Salvador.

Despite these risks, as ICE steps up deportations, activists are taking steps to protect vulnerable people. In some cases, they form human chains to block ICE officers and help people reach their homes, where immigration agents cannot enter without legal permission.

People are fighting back both in the streets and in the courts, challenging these injustices, pushing back against escalating repression and defending fundamental rights.

Do you see any hope for US democracy?

I believe that ultimately, Trump’s attempt to break the US government and dismantle constitutional democracy will fail, for several reasons.

First, we are a country of independent states, and states like California, Illinois and Massachusetts are actively resisting, fighting in courts and passing their own laws to protect their residents. This resistance comes at a cost. The Trump administration has already threatened to cut all federal funding to Maine after its governor refused to follow the administration’s anti-diversity directives. So far, the courts have sided with Maine.

Trump has repeatedly bypassed Congress and violated the separation of powers. In response, CSOs, US states, unions, universities and citizens have already filed over 150 lawsuits against the federal government alleging breaches of the constitution. These lawsuits are steadily moving through the courts and so far, the rulings have overwhelmingly gone against the administration.

At the grassroots level, daily protests continue and constantly evolve. Instead of trying to bring millions to Washington DC, the strategy has shifted toward organising thousands of decentralised protests across the country. After national parks were shut down, for example, there were 433 protests across every single national park on the same day. Movements like ‘Hands Off’ have mobilised millions.

We are learning from struggles in Hungary, Turkey, Ukraine and elsewhere. We now know that democracy cannot be taken for granted; it must be defended every day. But we also know that our strength lies in solidarity. People are forming networks of resistance across the country. We have realised that if we stand alone, we may fail, but together, we can preserve our democracy.

GET IN TOUCH
LinkedIn

SEE ALSO
Trump and Musk take the chainsaw to global civil society CIVICUS Lens 07.Mar.2025
Tech leaders cosy up to Trump CIVICUS Lens 20.Feb.2025
US funding cuts: Philanthropy must step in to support locally led development CIVICUS 12.Feb.2025

 

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');  

The Commission on Population and Development (2024)

By Mary Kuira
NAIROBI, May 7 2025 (IPS)

Just a month ago, I found myself in a hospital, anxiously waiting for my son to be attended to. As we sat quietly in one of the waiting rooms, an emergency case was wheeled in — a young woman, barely out of her teens. Her face contorted in visible pain. Her dress was soaked with blood, which had begun to pool beneath the wheelchair and trickle onto the floor.

I couldn’t help but overhear the nurse asking the girl who had accompanied her, “What happened?” “She just started her periods,” the friend whispered, her voice laced with fear and confusion.

But from my own experience, I knew periods don’t arrive like this. The heavy bleeding, the extreme pain, the sheer urgency: something was terribly wrong. In a country where abortion is criminalized and conversations on reproductive health are often shrouded in silence, there are things you don’t say out loud, not even in a hospital.

Presentations were dominated by government departments and bureaucrats. I couldn’t help but wonder — where were the voices of the people these policies are meant to serve? Where was the civil society that brought these stories from their grassroots partners?
Later, I learned the young woman had been referred to a higher-level facility because the hospital couldn’t handle her case. I left that day with a prayer on my lips, hoping she lived to tell her story.

So why am I sharing this? Because last week, I sat in another room, far away from that hospital, attending the 58th Session of the Commission on Population and Development (CPD58) at the United Nations.

This was my first time attending the annual conference. The conversations were a sobering reminder of how precarious sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) remain, especially for young women like the one I saw that day.

Despite the gravity of the global challenges, CPD58 felt like a more formal than interactive space. At many of the side events I attended, audiences sat silent, rarely given the chance to ask questions.

Presentations were dominated by government departments and bureaucrats. I couldn’t help but wonder — where were the voices of the people these policies are meant to serve? Where was the civil society that brought these stories from their grassroots partners?

 

Breaking the silence

One of the few spaces that broke this silence was a gathering organized by the International Sexual and Reproductive Rights Coalition (ISRRC), a coalition of organizations from all regions of the world dedicated to advancing SRHR. It offered a rare moment of authentic exchange, where the few CSO voices present could reflect on the battles we face both at home and on the global stage.

But overall, the opposition to SRHR remained stubborn and vocal. I listened as some delegations pushed back against terms that should be non-negotiable: Comprehensive Sexuality Education (CSE), safe abortion, gender equality.

These are not just words; they are lifelines for young women, especially those navigating complex realities in countries like mine, Kenya.

Ironically, many CPD58 conversations just wanted to focus on maternal health, not on teenage pregnancies or young mothers. Basically, addressing maternal health without discussing the process that leads to pregnancy (sex and sexuality) and therefore CSE.

I couldn’t help but think: How do we talk about preventing HIV without talking about sex? How do we address teenage pregnancy without speaking openly about reproductive health? How can we ignore child marriages when they remain a heartbreaking reality across many countries? And what do we say to survivors of rape — young or old — who become pregnant? Should they be forced to carry these pregnancies, regardless of the trauma or the risks?

As an advocate and a believer in the power of quality data to inform decisions, these questions weigh heavily on me. Are the policies we design grounded in real, lived experiences? Do we collect and use data to reflect the brutal realities so many young women face daily?

 

Combating anti-rights narratives

One clear takeaway from CPD58 was this: facts and stories must go hand in hand. Data alone can inform, but stories can transform. Both are essential to combating anti-rights narratives and creating spaces for conversations.

Another key take away is the critical need for civil society to maintain both its presence and momentum in these spaces. The CPD remains one of the least attended UN meetings, and its negotiation process is opaque.

The anti-rights movement’s growing clout risks reversing many SRHR gains by easily passing resolutions without push back. If civil society isn’t present and organized, no one will be the wiser. It is essential to occupy and safeguard this space.

We must train youth activists to counter opposition and challenge anti-gender, anti-abortion, and anti-CSE rhetoric not just with facts, but with human stories.

Tell the stories that humanize the data; stories like the one I witnessed in that hospital room. Digital spaces hold tremendous potential to advance SRHR, especially for marginalized communities.

Yet, with opportunity comes risk. The same platforms that can empower young women are breeding grounds for misinformation. Our efforts must include both creating digital solutions and equipping young women to navigate these spaces safely and wisely.

I was encouraged to see progressive voices from the European Union, Latin America, and parts of Africa and Asia stand firm in defending SRHR within the final negotiated text. But the fight doesn’t end there.

From Nigeria to Mozambique, from Jordan to Guatemala — and every corner in between — we must ensure young women in all their diversities are not left behind. Their voices, rights, and choices must be respected.

Finally, we must keep the pressure on at home. Advocacy for policies that protect and expand comprehensive sexuality education, safe abortion (where permitted), and youth-friendly SRH services must not stop at international commitments. We must hold our governments accountable and ensure those commitments translate into action.

The young woman in that hospital room deserved better. So do countless others like her.

And the only way forward is by standing up, speaking out, and refusing to let silence win.

 

Mary Kuira is Global DMEL Coordinator at Hivos East Africa

Without proper governance and input from multiple stakeholders artificial intelligence poses risks to freedom of expression and elections. Credit: Unsplash/Element5 Digital

By Naureen Hossain
UNITED NATIONS, May 7 2025 (IPS)

The prevalence of artificial intelligence (AI) is changing the flow and access of information, which has a wider influence on how freedom of expression is affected. National and local elections can demonstrate the particular strengths and vulnerabilities that can be exploited as AI is used to influence voters and political campaigns. As people grow more critical of institutions and the information they receive, governments and tech companies must exercise their responsibility to protect freedom of expression during elections.

This year’s World Press Freedom Day (May 3) focused on AI’s effect on press freedom, the free flow of information, and how to ensure access to information and fundamental freedoms. AI brings the risk of spreading misinformation or disinformation and spreading online hate speech. In elections, this can violate free speech and privacy rights.

In a parallel event hosted in the context of the World Press Freedom Global Conference 2025. The event also coincided with the launch of a new issue brief from the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) detailing the growing influence of AI and the potential risks—and opportunities—to freedom of expression during elections.

Recommender algorithms that determine what a user sees and interacts with when it comes to information can have wider implications on the information that that user has access to during an election cycle, according to Pedro Conceição, UNDP Director of the Human Development Report Office.

“I think we need the humility to recognize that they are so complex and they have this element of novelty that requires us to bring together perspectives from across a range of stakeholders,” said Conceição.

Freedom of expression is essential for elections to be run in a credible, transparent environment. Fostering this freedom and access to information allows for public engagement and discourse. Countries are obligated under international law to respect and protect the freedom of expression. During elections, this responsibility can become challenging. How this responsibility is handled across state authorities varies between countries. The increased investments in AI have allowed for actors in the electoral process to make use of this technology.

Electoral management bodies are responsible for informing citizens on how to participate in elections. They may rely on AI to disseminate the information more readily through social media platforms. AI can also help with the implementation of strategic information strategies and public awareness efforts, as well as online analysis and research.

Social media and other digital platforms have been visibly employing generative AI as their parent companies experiment with how it can be integrated into their services. They are also employing it in content moderation. However, there has been an emphasis on increasing platform engagement and retention, at the risk of compromising information integrity. Young people in particular increasingly use social media as their main source of information, according to Cooper Gatewood, Senior Research Manager focusing on mis/disinformation at BBC Media Action.

“Audiences are aware of and understanding of the quantity of false information circulating at the moment,” said Gatewood. He discussed the findings of surveys conducted in Indonesia, Tunisia, and Libya, where 83, 39, and 35 percent of respondents,  reported concerns with coming across misinformation or disinformation on a regular basis. Conversely, there was a “parallel trend” emerging in reports from Tunisia and Nepal that many users agreed that it was more important for information to be spread quickly than for it to be fact-checked.

“So this clearly demonstrates that AI-generated disinformation, especially in situations like elections, humanitarian contexts, crisis situations… where information can be spotty, or difficult to access, or move quite quickly… [the] false information that is shared quickly by audiences can very quickly have an impact and can produce a harm,” Gatewood warned.

Within the context of freedom of expression and elections, AI poses several risks to their integrity. For one, technological capabilities vary across the gamut among countries. Developing countries with a smaller tech infrastructure are less likely to have the tools to make use of AI or to deal with the issues that emerge. The frameworks on governing digital spaces and AI in particular would also affect how effectively countries can regulate them.

Frameworks outlined in documents such as UNESCO’s Guidelines for the Governance of Digital Platforms (2023) and their recommendations on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence (2021) provide stakeholders with insight into their responsibilities in protecting freedom of expression and information in the governance process. They also provide policy recommendations around data governance, ecosystems, and the environment, among other areas, based on the core need to protect human rights and dignity.

As Albertina Piterbarg, a UNESCO Electoral Project Officer in the Freedom of Expression and the Safety of Journalists Section, remarked at the panel, the organization found early on that it was “increasingly complex” to address digital information in only a “black-and-white” way. What they realized was that it was important to “create a multi-stakeholder approach” in dealing with digital technology and AI. This meant working with multiple stakeholders, such as governments, tech companies, private investors, academia, the media, and civil society, to build up a “common understanding” of the impacts of AI through capacity-building, for example.

“We need to address this in a human rights-based approach. We need to address this in an egalitarian way. And in every election, every democracy is important. It doesn’t matter the commercial impact or other private interests,” said Piterbarg.

Pamela Figueroa, President of the Board of Directors of the Electoral Service of Chile, spoke at the panel on her country’s experiences with AI during the electoral process, notably the risk of “information pollution.” She warned that the deluge of information thanks to AI could “generate asymmetry in the political participation,” which can in turn affect the level of trust in institutions and the whole electoral process itself.

Information has become increasingly complex in the digital age, and AI has only added to that complexity. While people are increasingly aware of the presence of AI. AI-generated content, namely “deepfakes,” is being used to undermine the political process and discredit political candidates, and the technology to create deepfakes is unfortunately easily accessible to the public.

It has been proven that AI models are not immune from human biases and discrimination, and this can be reflected in their outputs. AI has also been used in spreading gender discrimination through harassment and cyberstalking. Women politicians are more likely to be victims of deepfakes depicting them in sexualized contexts. When used in social media, gender discrimination and harassment can discourage women from political participation and public debate during elections.

With that said, AI also presents opportunities for freedom of expression. The brief points out that a multi-stakeholder approach is needed to address the specific needs for information integrity in the face of AI. Ensuring trust in the electoral process is more important than ever. State authors can achieve this through effective and reliable strategic communications campaigns, with the support of other stakeholders such as the media, civil society, and tech companies. Media and information literacy must be further cultivated to navigate the complex information spaces, with investments in both long-term and short-term interventions targeting youths and adults.

Digital platforms also have the responsibility to implement safeguards on AI and ensure protections in election-specific contexts. The brief outlines certain measures that can be taken, including investing in adequate content moderation for election needs; prioritizing the public good in how algorithms recommend electoral information; conducting and publishing risk assessments; promoting high-quality and accurate electoral information; and consulting civil society and electoral management bodies.

What this demonstrates is that the dynamics between AI, freedom of expression, and elections require multi-stakeholder approaches. Shared understanding and structured methods will be critical in conducting elections in a fast-moving environment, and the insights drawn from this specific context can provide strategies for how to cultivate AI’s broader potential for humanity. This must be taken into account when we consider that modern generative AI technology has been made more accessible and mainstream in the last two years and has already resulted in transformations across multiple sectors.

“We’ve taken these AI tools and they’re basically in everyone’s phone, And… to some extent it’s free,” said Ajay Patel, Technology and Election Expert, UNDP and the author of the issue brief. “So, where is that going to lead? What happens? What kind of innovation is going to be unleashed? For good? Sometimes for ill, when everyone has access to this sort of powerful flat technology?”

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');  

By Simone Galimberti
KATHMANDU, Nepal, May 7 2025 (IPS)

A UN groundbreaking report published in 1982 laid the legal ground for defining the inalienable rights of Indigenous Peoples.

The document, written by José Martínez Cobo, a United Nations Special Rapporteur, analyzed the complex discrimination patterns faced by Indigenous Peoples.

If the international community is serious about protecting and safeguarding their rights, then it is indispensable to go back to one of the central questions raised in that report: the identity of indigenous people has always been intrinsically interconnected to their lands.

This tenant, now a legal concept mainstreamed in the international human rights jurisprudence, is with few exceptions, unheeded.

Disregarding and violating the rights of Indigenous Peoples to their own lands had led to disenfranchisement, alienation and countless suffering.

The relationship of Indigenous Peoples with their lands with all the measures needed to be enforced to protect it, are the foundations of United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), adopted by the General Assembly on 13 September 2007.

Upholding the Declaration’s principles and ensuring its implementation remains one of the key challenges faced by Indigenous Peoples worldwide. It was also the theme of this year’s United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, (UNPFII) the most important UN sanctioned gathering of Indigenous Peoples.

In its 24th session, hosted at the UN HQ in New York from 21 April to 2 May 2025, discussions were focused on how power sharing should underpin any quests of implementing the UNDRIP.

Because, essentially and let’s not forget it, the UNDRIP, is about recognizing Indigenous Peoples’ power. Ensuring Indigenous Peoples’ rights to their lands is paramount if we really want to ensure an inclusive form of governance that respects them.

Discussions over more inclusive forms of governance for Indigenous Peoples should yield to venues for them to have a much stronger saying over their own affairs. After many years of advocacy and legal battles, there have been some victories.

New Zealand, before the rise to power of its current conservative government, and Canada made major strides to respect and uphold the sovereign rights of their Indigenous Peoples.

There have also been strides also on other fronts, more locally.

A research presented at last year’s session of the Forum, showed some encouraging practices. For example, the Sami Parliament in Norway, the concept of Indigenous Autonomies in Mexico City and some traditions from the Tharu and Newar Peoples of Nepal, do offer some models of self-governance.

But, overall, the picture is grim.

Despite the legal framework that has been established and despite many declarations, still, the right to self-determination of Indigenous Peoples, paramount to their quest towards autonomous decision making, is contested and fought back.

And the only way to ensure its realization is when states will accept that in case of governance, whenever the rights of Indigenous Peoples are implied, it should be shared.

To be clear, this process should not be seen as a devolution of power. Rather it should be understood as a legitimate reclamation of power. The just concluded UNPFII tried to underscore this concept.

One of the conclusions of this year’s session underscored that “there has been growing recognition of the need for formal UN mechanisms that ensure Indigenous Peoples’ meaningful participation in global governance”.

The Secretary General of the United Nations, Antonio Guterres, acknowledged, in his opening remarks at the Forum, the violations and abuses faced by Indigenous Peoples.

“The difficulties facing Indigenous Peoples around the world are an affront to dignity and justice. And a source of deep sorrow for me personally”.

The daunting challenges posed by climate warming and the imperative to transition to a net zero economy are going to further challenge the compliance of the UNDRIP.

At the 24th Session, a central focus was the role of Indigenous Peoples in the context of the extraction of critical minerals that are indispensable to ensure a just transition.

On this aspect, a major study, submitted by Hindou Oumarou Ibrahim and Hannah McGlad, two members of the Forum, highlighted that there is no quest for critical minerals nor any just transition unless Indigenous Peoples are put at the front of this epochal shift.

One of the key questions is to think how governments, already pressed by geopolitical imperatives and in many cases already not compliant with the UNDRIP, can really involve, engage and consult with Indigenous Peoples.

The principle of Free, Prior, Informed Consent (FPIC) a foundational pillar of the UNDRIP, is normally only paid lip service to. But without respecting the FPIC, there won’t be a “Just Transition”.

In this regard, the worst performers in upholding this right are often multilateral and bilateral banks. Some difficult questions must be solved.

What could be done to ensure that Indigenous Peoples are at the center of the decision making whenever their lives and lands are concerned?

How to shift from a legal landscape in which the few positive exceptions become the norm? How can Indigenous Peoples better channel their grievances and come forward with their own solutions?

The UNPFII remains the only major platform that Indigenous Peoples can leverage. Yet, no matter its relevance, we are still dealing with a tool driven by symbolism that holds no binding powers.

Certainly, we cannot forget the existence of the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the Special Rapporteur on the rights of Indigenous Peoples.

If the former can offer valuable insights, the latter, as all the special procedures within the United Nations Human Rights Council, lacks teeth and enforceable powers.

One of the major requests at UNPFII, since several years, has been the appointment of a Special Representative or Advisor on Indigenous Issues to the Secretary General. Yet, even if this demand were to be fulfilled, such a new role would not lead to any substantial impact.

Even within the UNFCCC process, Indigenous issues do struggle to get attention. The recently approved Baku Work Plan could be seen just as unambitious document and the existing

The UNFCCC Local Communities and Indigenous Peoples Platform (LCIPP) is not only designed to dilute the voice of Indigenous Peoples but it is made ineffective by purpose.

More promising it is the upcoming debate to create an Indigenous Voice, the so called on Article 8(j), within the framework of the UN Convention on Biodiversity but the negotiations are going to be contentious.

The real crux is how to engage the many governments that, even now, do not recognize the unique identities of Indigenous Peoples. But here is still a lot that the United Nations system could do on its own.

This was a major point of discussion at UNPFII because UN agencies and programs must do a much better job at involving and engaging Indigenous Peoples beyond tokenism.

The probable restructuring process that the UN might be forced to undertake following the cuts in official aid by the new American Administration, should simplify its governance. But such redesign should lead to imagining new spaces that, at minimum, would enable Indigenous Peoples to have their voice heard.

The call for a “Second World Conference on Indigenous Peoples” to commemorate the twentieth anniversary of the UNDRIP in September 2027, offers an important opportunity for Indigenous Peoples.

But the advocacy work needed to hold such a historic event would only be justified if the focus in 2027 will be on measures to return the decision making to Indigenous Peoples. Essentially, any new World Conference on Indigenous Peoples should be centered on new forms of governance and power sharing.

These are the two key but inconvenient concepts that must be analyzed and discussed and ultimately internalized with the overarching goal of finally giving back Indigenous Peoples what is due.

Simone Galimberti writes about the SDGs, youth-centered policy-making and a stronger and better United Nations.

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');  

By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, May 7 2025 (IPS)

The UN’s proposed plans for restructuring the world body, currently under discussion at the highest echelons of the Secretariat, have provoked a protest from the UN Staff Union (UNSU) in New York which claims it is being left out of the ongoing negotiations.

The proposed restructuring–including staff cutbacks, the elimination of redundant departments and the merging of several UN agencies under one roof– is expected to be an integral part of Secretary-General Antonio Guterres’ highly-ambitious UN80 project.

In a memo to staffers on International Labour Day May 1, UNSU President Narda Cupidore says: “We stand in solidarity with all our colleagues globally; and we see you and support you in Geneva at your gathering on the Place des Nations in Geneva to denounce the austerity measures affecting the entire United Nations system”.

“UN80 Initiative from the looks of what we are seeing from the media will have far-reaching implications of this initiative—particularly in terms of job functions, relocations, and potential abolishment of posts.”

Staff Representatives and, by extension, staff at large, she pointed out, were not consulted or involved in shaping the direction of this process.

“This exclusion is not only disheartening, but it also runs counter to the principles of participatory decision-making and the commitments made under the Staff-Management Committee framework”.

Staff have consistently shown resilience, commitment, and adaptability in the face of repeated structural changes, all while continuing to uphold the values and mandates of the Organization.

“It is appalling that once again, those who will be most affected by such measures are the last to be informed and the least involved in contributing to the process”.

Asked for a response, UN Spokesperson Stephane Dujarric told IPS: “We fully understand that the current situation is a cause of concern, and anxiety, for many of our staff.”

“It is important to note that we are in the initial phase of formulating positions and proposals. Consultations have taken place, and they will continue to do so, as the insights of staff are valued and will be carefully considered.”

At the global town hall meeting in March 2025, the Secretary-General emphasized that the UN80 Initiative is a management-led effort. However, he of course committed to consulting with staff representatives through the Staff-Management Committee (SMC) on decisions impacting the staff.

In April, during the annual meeting of the SMC, management briefed the staff representatives on the UN80 Initiative. Also in April, a dedicated UN80 Initiative page was created on iSeek, inviting staff at large to submit ideas via a suggestion box. The responsive was impressive as over 1,400 suggestions have been received. Management will review all of the suggestions, said Dujarric.

A dedicated extraordinary SMC meeting will be held in June to further amplify consultation with staff representatives on the UN80 Initiative, he assured.

Ian Richards, an economist at the Geneva-based UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) and former President of the Coordinating Committee of International Staff Unions and Associations (CCISUA), told IPS: “Yes, two things. One is that there hasn’t been consultation on the direction of these reforms. The only offer so far has been to propose that there be consultation once all is decided, which isn’t consultation. The suggestion box is also a way to justify certain changes post facto by pointing out that one or other staff member may have also made that suggestion.”

Second, he pointed out, the proposals being circulated and leaked seem somewhat random and done from a position of panic rather than coherent reflection on how the UN can better play to its strengths and better impact people every day.

Some sections of the document appear to have been written by AI and the main thrust included merging the IMF into the UN. How can this be serious? asked Richards.

In analyzing the crisis further, the UNSU said what is even worse, is finding all this news, developments, memos mentioning detailed relocations of jobs, directly from the press and articles in different social media platforms.

“We call upon our Secretary General and senior leadership to reaffirm its commitment to transparency, collaboration, and respect for staff voices.

“As we move forward, we will continue to advocate for our inclusion in all decisions that impact our roles, livelihoods, and futures. Now more than ever, it is essential that we remain united, informed, and engaged,” said Cupidore.

Meanwhile, the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), the UN’s humanitarian agency, is facing significant budget cuts due to a funding gap, primarily stemming from a reduction in US funding. This has led to plans for a 20% reduction in staff and a scaled-back presence in several countries, according to OCHA.

Besides OCHA, the budget cuts have also impacted on the World Food Program (WFP), UNICEF and the UN High Commission for Refugees, who are either closing offices, reducing staff or ending programs due to a sharp decrease in US funding

According to one published report last week, the three Rome-based food agencies, the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), and the World Food Program (WFP), are likely to be merged into a single UN agency.

In the health sector, one possible move would be to dissolve UNAIDS and absorb it within the World Health Organization (WHO).

The same restructuring could be a reality with the merger of three agencies that address refugees and migration: the office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), the International Organization for Migration (IOM), and the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA).

Asked about the impact of new US budget cutbacks, UN Deputy Spokesperson Farhan Haq told reporters May 6: “We’re not going to speculate on the new US budget and what it’s going to be, because, as you know, the shape of that budget changes over the course of the year as a process of the dialogue between, in particular, the executive and legislative branches of the US system.”

“And so, we’ll continue to follow, as that happens. But from our standpoint, we are taking steps to identify making how to make the UN more efficient and more effective while working with the sort of constraints in terms of budget and in terms of liquidity that we’ve been facing.”

So, we’re certainly continuing to work on those sorts of measures, said Haq.

Meanwhile, the Chief Executives Board the Secretary-General is meeting with in Copenhagen will discuss the UN 80 initiative, “and we’re taking steps along those lines to deal with how we can make more efficiencies within current arrangements, how we can deal with the mandates that we receive from Member States – to implement the ones that can be done while removing a certain amount of duplication in the work that we do – and of course, how we’ll pursue down the line any structural changes and programme realignment that will be needed.”

“Those will be designed to make us more efficient, but they will also help deal with the prospect of less money coming in, which is something that, to be honest, we’ve been getting more and more used to in the last years, regardless of what’s happening in the US right now,” declared Haq.

In introducing UN80 last month, Guterres said the United Nations stands out as the essential one-of-a-kind meeting ground to advance peace, sustainable development and human rights.

But resources are shrinking across the board – and they have been for a long time. For example, for at least the past seven years, the United Nations has faced a liquidity crisis because not all Member States pay in full, and many also do not pay on time.

“From day one of my mandate, we embarked on an ambitious reform agenda to strengthen how we work and deliver. To be more effective and cost-effective. To simplify procedures and decentralize decisions. To enhance transparency and accountability. To shift capacities to areas such as data and digital.”

And this 80th anniversary year of the United Nations, Guterres said, “is a prime moment to expand all our efforts, recognizing the need for even greater urgency and ambition”.

“That is why I have informed UN Member States that I am officially launching what we call the UN80 Initiative. I have appointed a dedicated internal Task Force led by Under-Secretary-General Guy Ryder – and composed of principals representing the entire UN system,” he said.

The objective will be to present to Member States proposals in three areas:

First, rapidly identifying efficiencies and improvements in the way we work. Second, thoroughly reviewing the implementation of all mandates given to us by Member States, which have significantly increased in recent years.

Third, a strategic review of deeper, more structural changes and programme realignment in the UN System, declared Guterres.

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');  

Even with its high healthcare expenditures, the US continues to lag behind other developed countries on virtually every measure of the chances of dying and living, including preventable and treatable deaths. Credit: Shutterstock

By Joseph Chamie
PORTLAND, USA, May 6 2025 (IPS)

On the crucial matters of life and death, the United States is a costly anomaly. Simply stated, women and men in the US pay more​ for health but get less​ life.

Although the United States has the highest healthcare costs per capita among developed countries, it does poorly compared to other developed countries on the vital issues of life and death.

The US spends close to twice the amount on healthcare per capita as other developed nations. In 2023, for example, the United States spent approximately $13,400 per person on healthcare, while the comparable average for other OECD countries was about $7,400 (Figure 1).

 

Source: OECD.

 

Even with its high healthcare expenditures, the US continues to lag behind other developed countries on virtually every measure of the chances of dying and living, including preventable and treatable deaths.

Despite the US paying high​er healthcare costs per capita​ than other developed countries, men and women in the United States are ending up with higher death rates and shorter lives than their peers abroad
The poor standing of the United States on measures of life and death persists despite the US having: (1) the world’s largest economy; (2) the most powerful military; (3) the third largest land area, population and workforce; (4) enormous amounts of resources; (5) a highly educated population; (5) a top migration destination; and (6) higher expenditures on health care per capita than other developed countries.

Starting at birth, the comparatively poor standing of the United States on matters of life and death is strikingly evident. The US has a higher infant mortality rate than the majority of other developed countries.

In 2023, the US ranked 33rd out of 38 OECD countries in terms of infant mortality. The US infant mortality rate of 5.6 deaths per 1,000 live births, which in 2023 resulted in 20,162 infant deaths, is more than three times the infant mortality rates of Japan, Norway and Sweden, which were about 1.7 deaths per 1,000 live births.

If the US had experienced an infant mortality rate of any of those three countries in 2023, the number of infant deaths would have been about 6,113, or 30% of the actual number of infant deaths.

Regarding maternal deaths, the United States also has one of the highest maternal mortality rates among wealthy nations. Its standing on maternal mortality is well below other developed countries, ranking 30th among OECD countries. In 2021, the US maternal mortality rate was three times the OECD average, i.e., 33 deaths per 100,000 versus 11 deaths per 100,000.

Furthermore, the life expectancy at birth of the United States ranks at about 32nd among OECD countries. In 2023, the US had a life expectancy of about 78 years, compared to an average of about 83 years among peer countries. The US life expectancy at birth is well behind countries such as Canada, France, Japan, Sweden and Switzerland (Figure 2).

 

Source: OECD.

 

It is the case that life expectancy at birth varies considerably across the large territory of the United States. Nevertheless, the life expectancies of all 50 US states fall below the average for comparable developed countries.

With respect to premature death before age 70 years, the US level is substantially higher than those of other developed countries. In 2021, the premature death rate before age 70 years of the United States was approximately twice the average for similar wealthy countries, i.e., 408 versus 228 per 100,000 people below age 70 years.

In the ages 25 to 29 years, men and women in the US experience death rates nearly three times higher than their counterparts in other developed countries. In particular, men and women in the United States are almost twice as likely as those in peer countries to die of cardiovascular diseases before age 70.

Also, US death rates from chronic diseases of the liver, kidneys and respiratory system as well as diabetes are increasing, especially among young people. In contrast, the death rates from those diseases in other developed countries have generally not changed or decreased during the recent past.

The reasons for the increase in chronic diseases among young people in the US are believed to be related to health behavior. For example, the prevalence of diabetes is strongly influenced by diet, respiratory diseases are linked to smoking and chronic liver conditions often result from heavy alcohol consumption.

The poor standing of the United States on the chances of survival continues well into old age. With respect to life expectancy at age 65 years, for example, the US is ranked 30th among OECD countries. Again, the US level is well below the life expectancies at age 65 years of other developed countries, including Australia, Canada, France, Japan, Sweden and Switzerland.

Many societal, communal, institutional and cultural factors influence life and death outcomes across the United States. Income, inequalities, access to healthcare, delays for care, lack of health insurance coverage, costs, affordability, shortages of healthcare professionals, administrative complexities and related shortcomings within the healthcare system are certainly critical determinants of survival outcomes and longevity in the US.

Moreover, the United States continues to be in a class by itself in the underperformance of its healthcare sector.

That underperformance is expected to worsen in the near future with the US administration’s proposed tax reduction legislation disproportionally going to the rich that is to be partially offset by huge cuts in Medicaid healthcare coverage, food assistance and related programs aimed at people with limited income, resources and security.

In contrast to the underperformance of the US healthcare, many high-income developed countries have found ways to meet most of the basic healthcare needs of its citizens, including universal coverage.

In addition to the shortcomings of the US healthcare sector, health behavior, including cigarette smoking, alcohol misuse, illicit drug use, motor vehicle crashes, firearms deaths, violence including homicides, obesity and the lack of exercise, also affect preventable deaths and average lifespans.

With respect to health behavior, men and women in the United States are doing relatively poorly in comparison to their peers in other developed countries. In terms of obesity, for example, the US level of approximately 42% is the highest among OECD countries with the percentages of many countries being a fraction of the US level, including Italy, Japan and South Korea, all at less than 10 percent.

In terms of daily food consumption, the United States consumes more calories and sugar per capita than any other OECD country. The US also has the highest level of ultra processed food consumption in the world, estimated to account for approximately half of the calorie intake of the average person in the United States.

Regarding motor vehicle crashes, the United States has one of the highest motor vehicle death rates among OECD countries. Among the reasons believed to account for the higher vehicle fatality rate of the US are distracted driving, speeding and impaired driving.

In 2022, for example, the US fatality rate from registered motor vehicles was one of the highest among OECD countries. The motor vehicle fatality rates of some OECD countries, such as Canada, Denmark, Italy, Japan, Sweden and the UK, were less than half of the US rate (Figure 3).

 

Source: OECD.

 

In sum, despite the US paying high​er healthcare costs per capita​ than other developed countries, men and women in the United States are ending up with higher death rates and shorter lives than their peers abroad. Moreover, considering the recent actions and proposed legislation of the US government, the existing healthcare system and the health behavior of the country’s population, the anomaly of healthcare costs and length of life in the United States is not likely to improve any time soon.

 

Joseph Chamie is a consulting demographer, a former director of the United Nations Population Division and author of numerous publications on population issues, including his recent book, “Population Levels, Trends, and Differentials”.

Dominican Republic’s Minister of Labor Eddy Olivares Ortega and Javier Cremades, President of the World Jurist Association, hand the Medal of Honor award to Just Rights for Children founder Bhuwan Ribhu.

By Stella Paul
NEW DELHI, May 6 2025 (IPS)

Bhuwan Ribhu didn’t plan to become a child rights activist. But when he saw how many children in India were being trafficked, abused, and forced into marriage, he knew he couldn’t stay silent.

“It all started with failure,” Ribhu says. “We tried to help, but we weren’t stopping the problem. That’s when I realized—no one group can do this alone. Calling the problem for what it truly is—a criminal justice issue rather than a social justice issue—I knew the solution needed holistic scale.”

Today, Bhuwan Ribhu leads Just Rights for Children—one of the world’s largest networks dedicated to protecting children. In recognition of his relentless efforts to combat child marriage and trafficking, he has just been awarded the prestigious Medal of Honor by the World Jurist Association. The award was presented at the recently concluded World Law Congress in the Dominican Republic.

But for Ribhu, the honor isn’t about recognition. “This is a reminder that the world is watching—and that children are counting on us,” he tells IPS in his first interview after receiving the award.

Looking Back: One Meeting Changed Everything

For Ribhu, a lawyer by profession, it has been a long, arduous, and illustrious journey to getting justice for children. But this long journey began during a meeting of small nonprofits in eastern India’s Jharkhand state, where someone spoke up: “Girls from my village are being taken far away, to Kashmir, and sold into marriage.”

That moment hit Ribhu hard.

“That’s when it struck me—one person or one group can’t solve a problem that crosses state borders,” he says. He then started building a nationwide network.

And just like that, the Child Marriage-Free India (CMFI) campaign was born. Dozens of organizations joined, and the number grew steadily until it reached 262.

So far, more than 260 million people have joined in the campaign, with the Indian government launching Bal Vivah Mukt Bharat—a national mission towards ending child marriage in India.

Across villages, towns, and cities, people are speaking up for a child marriage-free India.

“What used to feel impossible is now within reach,” Ribhu says.

Taking the Fight to Courtrooms

Ribhu is a trained lawyer, and for him, the law is a powerful weapon.

Since 2005, he’s fought—and won—dozens of important cases in Indian courts. These have helped define child trafficking in Indian law; make it mandatory for police to act when children go missing; criminalize child labor; set up support systems for abuse survivors; and remove harmful child sexual abuse content from the internet.

One big success came when the courts accepted that if a child is missing, police should assume they might have been trafficked. This changed everything. Reported missing cases dropped from 117,480 to  67,638 a year.

“That’s what justice in action looks like,” said Ribhu.

Taking Along Religious Leaders

One of the most powerful moves of CMFI was reaching out to religious leaders.

The reason was simple: whatever the religion is, it is the religious leader who conducts a marriage.

“If religious leaders refuse to marry children, the practice will stop,” says Ribhu.

The movement began visiting thousands of villages. They met Hindu priests, Muslim clerics, Christian pastors, and others. They asked them to take a simple pledge: “I will not marry a child, and I will report child marriage if I see it.”

The results have been astonishing: on festivals like Akshaya Tritiya—considered auspicious for weddings—many child marriages used to happen until recently. But temples now refuse to perform them.

“Faith can be a big force for justice,” Ribhu says. “And religious texts support education and protection for children.”

Going Global with a Universal Goal

But the campaign is no longer just India’s story. In January of this year, Nepal, inspired by the campaign, launched its own Child Marriage-Free Nepal initiative with the support of Prime Minister K. P. Sharma Oli. All the seven provinces of the country have joined it, vowing to take steps to stop child marriage

The campaign has also spread to 39 other countries, including Kenya and the Democratic Republic of Congo, where calls for a global child protection legal network are gaining momentum.

“The legal systems of different countries and regions may differ, but justice should be the same everywhere,” says Ribhu, who has also authored two books—Just Rights and When Children Have Children—where he has laid out a legal, institutional, and moral framework to end child exploitation called PICKET. “It’s not just about shouting for change. It’s about building systems that protect children every day,” Ribhu says.

Sacrifices and Hope

Ribhu gave up a promising career in law practice. Many people didn’t understand why.

“People said I was wasting my time,” he remembers. “But one day my son said, ‘Even if you save just one child, it’s worth it.’ That meant everything to me.”

A believer in the idea of Gandhian trusteeship—the belief that we should use our talents and privileges to serve others, especially those who need help the most.

“I may not be the one to fight child marriage in Iraq or Congo. But someone will. And we’ll stand beside them.”

A Powerful Award and a Bigger Mission

The World Jurist Association Medal isn’t just a trophy. For Ribhu, it’s a platform. “It tells the world: This is possible. Change is happening. Let’s join in.”

He also hopes that the award will help his team connect with new partners and expand their work to new regions.

“In 2024 alone, over 2.6 lakhs Child Marriages were prevented and stopped and over 56,000 children were rescued from trafficking and exploitation in India. These numbers show that change is not just a dream—it’s real,” he says.

By 2030, Ribhu hopes to see the number of child marriages in India falling below 5 percent.

But there’s more to do. In some countries, like Iraq, girls can still be married as young as 10, and in the United States, 35 states still allow child marriage under certain conditions.

“Justice can’t be occasional,” Ribhu says. “It must be a part of the system everywhere. We must make sure justice isn’t just a word—it’s a way of life.”

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');  

Many African countries are perceived as a credit and investment risk. As a result, they are paying higher borrowing costs than developed countries. African countries often fail to attract international investment and finance as a result of poor credit ratings by international agencies. Only Botswana and Mauritius, out of the 55 African countries, receive an […]

LDC Future Forum Banner. Credit: The Office of the High Representative for the Least Developed Countries, Landlocked Developing Countries and Small Island Developing States (UNOHRLLS)

By May Yaacoub
LUSAKA, Zambia, May 6 2025 (IPS)

The 3rd LDC Future Forum, held from April 1-3, 2025, in Zambia, brought together global leaders, policymakers, and experts to address the urgent need for resilience in the world’s 44 Least Developed Countries (LDCs).

Under the theme of enhancing resilience, the forum emphasized innovative financing, climate-smart agriculture, sustainable infrastructure, circular economy and multi-stakeholder partnerships to combat systemic shocks.

A Call for Proactive Resilience

The forum opened with a powerful speech by Ms. Rabab Fatima, Under-Secretary-General and High Representative of the UN-OHRLLS, who highlighted the vulnerability of LDCs to climate change, economic instability, and ongoing geopolitical crises, underscoring that the theme of this year’s Forum is both timely and urgent.

Ms. Fatima highlighted Ethiopia’s Productive Safety Net Programme and Cambodia’s digital IDPoor database that show how timely, targeted, digitally enabled, and shock-responsive mechanisms can break cycles of vulnerability. In this regard, she asserted that “LDCs possess immense potential for transformation, but this requires stronger financing mechanisms, climate-smart agriculture, and inclusive social protection systems.”

Rabab Fatima, Under-Secretary-General and High Representative of the OHRLLS. Credit: OHRLLS

Zambia’s Leadership on being proactive and developing Resilience

Mr. Hakainde Hichilema, the 7th President of Zambia, emphasized the need for Zambia and other LDCs to transition from dependence on foreign aid to achieving proactive self-reliance. He highlighted how evolving geopolitical dynamics have led to reductions in aid, signaling that traditional reliance on external assistance is no longer a sustainable strategy for development.

President Hichilema stressed the importance of building resilience by leveraging domestic solutions and greater solidarity among LDCs. The LDC Future Forum, he explained, embodies this shift—preparing Zambia to face emerging challenges internally rather than relying on external aid.

The President highlighted his administration’s efforts in navigating crises, including the pandemic and a severe drought. Key advancements include enhanced irrigation for food security, expanded hydroelectric infrastructure, and greater solar energy adoption—all driving the nation toward self-sufficiency.

He said times have changed, stressing that “resilience is an absolute must.” and underscored the country’s desire to graduate from the LDC category in the years ahead.

Group Photo at 3rd LDC Future Forum, Lusaka, Zambia. Credit: OHRLLS

Finland’s Model for Development

Mr. Ville Tavio, Finland’s Foreign Trade and Development Minister, highlighted Finland’s enduring commitment to supporting LDCs and advancing the SDGs with a focus on inclusivity—ensuring no one is left behind, saying “The Future Forums bolster LDCs in harnessing their full potential to achieve social and economic growth”.

Mr. Tavio noted that Finland has developed a comprehensive model to strengthen resilience at home but acknowledged that this approach may not be universally applicable. Reflecting on his country’s journey, he noted that at independence in 1917, only 5% of its population had more than basic education, and much of the country was rural farmland.

Today, Finland has achieved developed-nation status, with education and social services accessible to all, pointing out that, with the right support and innovation, LDCs can also make fast progress in enhancing their resilience.

Key Highlights of the High-level dialogues and the thematic sessions:

1. Innovative Financing: Discussions revealed that developing countries including LDCs need $4 trillion annually to meet the SDGs. Blended finance and green bonds were proposed to bridge gaps, with examples like the Nordic Development Fund’s work in a select number of LDCs.

2. Climate-Smart Agriculture: Digital tools and AI for farmers took center stage, alongside calls for regional cooperation to combat food insecurity. Anticipatory action and resilience-building emerged as critical pillars of climate-smart strategies, including strengthening early warning systems, improving risk analysis, and tailoring solutions to each region’s specific environmental and socioeconomic conditions.

3. Water management and renewable energy: Participants highlighted scalable, innovative strategies for sustainable water management and renewable energy integration, emphasizing their critical role in enhancing resilience. Discussions also explored pathways to achieving water and energy security, with a particular focus on gender-sensitive approaches.

4. Circular Economy: Success stories in waste reduction and green industrialization were show-cased for Rwanda, Bangladesh and Ethiopia. These efforts, powered by partnerships, advanced technologies, and integrated approaches, pave the way for resilient and prosperous futures for LDCs.

5. Social Safety Nets: Tanzania’s TASAF program—which integrates cash transfers with public works—was highlighted as a successful model for supporting vulnerable communities while fostering long-term development. Similarly, Burundi’s use of social protection programs to mitigate the effects of recurring climate shocks, such as droughts and floods, showcased how targeted interventions can both lift people out of extreme poverty and strengthen community resilience.

The Road Ahead

The forum concluded with a consensus on accelerating the Doha Programme of Action (DPoA), prioritizing climate resilience, and strengthening partnerships. USG Fatima closed with a rallying call saying, “by working together, we can ensure that LDCs have the necessary tools and resources to achieve sustainable development and graduate from the LDC category with resilience and stability”.

As LDCs face escalating climate and economic threats, the forum’s outcomes offer a roadmap for sustainable development—one built on collaboration, innovation, and unwavering resolve.

Based on those outcomes, and to advance the Doha Programme of Action and build resilience in LDCs, it is crucial to expand innovative financing, and invest in climate-smart agriculture, sustainable water management, and renewable energy, and enhance monitoring and accountability.

Promoting economic diversification, circular economy models, and adaptable social protection systems-alongside strong multi-stakeholder partnerships-will reduce vulnerabilities and support sustainable growth amid ongoing challenges.

These steps aim to help LDCs build resilience, achieve sustainable development, and progress toward graduation from LDC status.

About the LDC Future Forum
The annual forum convenes leaders to address LDC vulnerabilities and solutions. Zambia’s hosting marked the first time the event was held in an LDC, amplifying local voices in global dialogues.

For more information, click here.

About UNOHRLLS
The Office of the High Representative for the Least Developed Countries, Landlocked Developing Countries and Small Island Developing States (UNOHRLLS) is dedicated to advocating for the sustainable development of LDCs, LLDCs, and SIDS. It promotes global awareness of their unique challenges and mobilizes international support for their development priorities.

Key Links:
• Op-Ed by USG Rabab Fatima
• Curtain Raiser Video
• Previous editions of LDC Future Forum
• Doha Programme of Action for the Least Developed Countries
• Roadmap to Doha Programme of Action

May Yaacoub is Head of Advocacy and Outreach, Office of the High Representative for the Least Developed Countries, Landlocked Developing Countries and Small Island Developing States (UN-OHRLLS)

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');  

By Jomo Kwame Sundaram
KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia, May 6 2025 (IPS)

US President Donald Trump has deliberately sown discord worldwide in attempting to remake the world to serve supposed American interests better. He will not cede influence, let alone power and control, to other nations, let alone people.

Jomo Kwame Sundaram

Mar-a-Lago Accord
His chief economic adviser, Stephen Miran, has offered some rationale for Trump’s tariffs besides promoting his ‘Mar-a-Lago Accord’ plan for US imperial revival. But even if most governments comply, the US deficits dilemma will not be resolved.

For Miran, Trump is reshaping the US-led unipolar world more equitably by getting others to bear more of the costs of ‘global public goods’ that the US ostensibly provides.

As geopolitical economist Ben Norton has noted, the US spends trillions on its global empire, with around 800 military bases abroad! While influential US corporate interests have benefited most, others have also gained.

The US contributed to the Global North’s reconstruction boom after World War II (WW2). After pre-empting growing Soviet influence from the last year of WW2, the US enhanced its hegemony by strengthening allies during the first Cold War.

However, Miran complains it is too “costly” to maintain the post-Cold War unipolar order without others bearing their “fair share” of the US costs of providing a “global security umbrella” and international dollar liquidity.

1985 Plaza Accord
In the 1980s, many complained about how Japan and Germany, which had lost WW2, had benefited from imposed military spending constraints and US occupation to gain industrial leadership worldwide.

At its second meeting at New York’s Plaza Hotel, the US-led Group of Five (G5), of the largest Western economies, agreed that the yen and Deutschemark should greatly appreciate against the US dollar.

This would ensure US recovery from its slowdown following dollar strengthening due to the Fed’s high-interest rate policy to quell inflation after the second oil price hike.

As the yen appreciated, Japan’s 1989 ‘Big Bang’ financial reforms sealed its fate. Its asset price bubble burst, also ending the post-war Japanese miracle boom.

Miran acknowledges US dollar “overvaluation has weighed heavily on the American manufacturing sector while benefiting financialised sectors of the economy in manners that benefit wealthy Americans”.

From Plaza to Mar-a-Lago
Unlike Plaza, Miran’s proposed Mar-a-Lago Accord, named for Trump’s private Florida retreat, will be imposed on all, especially allies in the Global North.

The Global North must improve the US trade balance by deterring imports and increasing exports by letting the dollar depreciate. Allies have been threatened with tariffs and unilateral withdrawal of the US security umbrella.

Miran’s proposal also envisions foreign governments holding 100-year US Treasury bonds. This should transfer long-term losses due to inflation to bondholders abroad.

He also wants a US sovereign wealth fund financed by revaluing US gold reserves to market prices. Meanwhile, his proposed cryptocurrency stabilisation fund already threatens to disrupt international finance.

His plan claims to reduce US trade deficits and bring back good jobs. Miran expects it will significantly shrink the US current account and fiscal deficits without requiring more tax revenue or spending cuts.

Weaker dollar not enough
Jenny Gordon has challenged Miran’s argument. She reasons that his plan is unrealisable without significantly shifting US resources from non-tradables to tradables.

Manufacturing investments needed to substitute imports and increase exports have to be financed. But the US has been a net borrower for almost half a century!

Its current account deficit reflects these savings-investment imbalances. The US would have to cut its capital account surplus by borrowing much less from others to reduce its current account deficit.

Making manufacturing more competitive requires a weaker dollar and new investment. The US must encourage Americans to save more, consume less, divert investment from elsewhere, and cut its fiscal deficit.

Otherwise, foreign borrowings financing manufacturing investments will strengthen the US dollar. Worse, a weaker greenback is needed to boost US competitiveness.

Miran may prevail
Even if US manufacturing recovers, well-paid jobs in depressed areas remain unlikely. Besides ageing, changing technology, consumption, and incomes have adversely affected prospects for reviving US manufacturing.

Government spending cuts have hurt state-sponsored research, which enabled the US to lead technological innovation worldwide until early this century.

Miran’s proposed forced conversion of US Treasury bonds held in official reserves to ‘century bonds’ will reduce confidence in the dollar and its liquidity value.

Besides lowering US borrowing costs, it would undermine the deep secondary market for US T-bills and dollar-denominated trade and financial flows—all key to dollar privilege.

The dollar’s status as a reserve currency has enabled the US to maintain massive fiscal deficits without high interest rates or the threat of currency collapse. But it has also constrained US economic options, favouring finance and other modern services.

Trump does not want to lose the dollar’s status as a reserve currency. His threat to the BRICS suggests likely harsh retaliation against efforts to reduce reliance on the US dollar.

The dollar’s status in international finance also enables the US to threaten others credibly. However, Trump’s treatment of allies reminds us that compliance does not ensure stability.

Miran presumes that trade and investment partner countries will do as he wants. While few may agree to his proposal, which will not work, not many may stand up to Trump. Worse, some are already giving lip service to the proposal.

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');   Related Articles

• Trump Wants World to Subsidise US Empire
• Trump’s ‘Shock and Awe’ Tariffs
• America First Deepens World Stagnation
• Imperialism (Still) Rules
• An ‘Exorbitant Privilege’ for All?
• New Geopolitics Worse for Global South
• The Global South in the New Cold War
• Trade, Currency War Weapons Double-Edged
• What’s different about Trump’s tariffs?
• Trump’s Trade War in Perspective

A HALO demining worker carefully probes for mines in Ukraine. Credit: Tom Pilston/HALO

By Ed Holt
BRATISLAVA, May 5 2025 (IPS)

As a string of European states announce withdrawals from a global treaty banning antipersonnel landmines, campaigners are warning countless lives could be put at risk as decades of progress fighting the weapons come under threat.

On April 16, Latvia’s parliament approved the country’s withdrawal from the Ottawa Convention. This came just weeks after Estonia, Lithuania, Poland, and Finland all announced their intention to pull out of the treaty.

The countries have argued the move is a necessary security measure in light of growing Russian aggression.

But campaign groups have said that pulling out of the treaty is undermining the agreement itself with serious humanitarian implications.

“While far from the end of the treaty, this is a very big setback for the treaty and a very depressing development. Antipersonnel landmines are objectionable because they are inherently indiscriminate weapons and because of their long-lasting humanitarian impact,” Mary Wareham, deputy director of the Crisis, Conflict and Arms Division at Human Rights Watch, which is a co-founder of the International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL), told IPS.

“The supposed military benefits of landmines are far outweighed by the devastating humanitarian implications of them,” she added.

The 1997 Ottawa Treaty bans the use, production, transfer, and stockpiling of antipersonnel landmines. It has been ratified or accepted by 165 countries—Russia, the United States, China, North Korea, Iran, and Israel are among those that are not signatories.

HALO demining in action. Credit: Tom Pilston/HALO

Campaign groups supporting the ban highlight the devastation landmines cause not just from direct casualties but also from driving massive displacement, hindering the delivery of humanitarian aid and impeding socio-economic recovery from conflict.

Meanwhile, the vast majority of those killed by landmines—80%—are civilians, with children particularly vulnerable.

“The presence of mines and other explosive ordnance continues to cause high levels of fatalities and serious injury, often resulting in life-long disabilities, with disproportionate impacts on children, persons with disabilities, and those forced to return under desperate conditions,” Shabia Mantoo, UNHCR spokesperson, told IPS.

“In addition to the high death toll, injuries and their aftereffects, including psychological damage, the presence of explosive devices hinders access to local livelihoods such as pastures, fields, farms, and firewood, as well as community infrastructure. They also affect the delivery of humanitarian aid and development activities. For humanitarian actors, their ability to safely reach communities with high levels of humanitarian needs and vulnerabilities and deliver life-saving assistance and protection  are often seriously constrained due to risks posed by explosive devices,” Mantoo added.

Humanitarian groups say the treaty has been instrumental in reducing landmine casualties from approximately 25,000 per year in 1999 to fewer than 5,000 in 2023. The number of contaminated states and regions has also declined significantly, from 99 in 1999 to 58 in 2024.

The treaty also includes measures requiring member countries to clear and destroy them as well as to provide assistance to victims, and as of the end of last year, 33 states had completed clearing all antipersonnel mines from their territory since 1999.

But in recent years, landmine casualties have grown amid new and worsening conflicts.

Data from the ICBL’s Landmine Monitor (2024) showed that in 2023, at least 5,757 people were killed or injured by landmines in 2023—a rise of 22 percent compared with 2022—in 53 countries.

The highest number of casualties—1,003—was recorded in Myanmar. This was three times the number in 2022. This was followed by Syria (933), Afghanistan (651), Ukraine (580), and Yemen (499).

In a special report on the continuing risks posed by mines and explosive remnants of war (ERW), the presence of which is known as ‘weapon contamination,’ released earlier in April, the International Committee for the Red Cross (ICRC)  warned that in 2025, the humanitarian impact of weapon contamination would likely continue to rise.

“The increased use of improvised explosive devices, shifting frontlines, and worsening security conditions will make survey and clearance efforts even more complex and therefore leave communities exposed to greater danger,” the report stated.

In two of the world’s most landmine-contaminated countries, Myanmar and Ukraine, the severe humanitarian impact of massive landmine use is being made horrifyingly clear.

In Myanmar, local aid groups say the ruling military junta’s use of landmines has escalated to unprecedented levels, while rebel groups are also deploying them. Roads and villages have been mined—ostensibly for military purposes, although many observers say they are just as often used to terrorize local populations—leading to not just civilian deaths and horrific injuries but also hindering vital medical care and aid efforts. Mines have been used in all 14 Myanmar states and regions, affecting about 60 percent of the country’s townships.

The mines have been an extra problem in the aftermath of the devastating earthquake at the end of March. The International Committee for the Red Cross (ICRC) said just days after the disaster, which killed more than 3,000 people, that as people relocated to areas less impacted by the earthquake and local and international organizations planned their response, ERWs were threatening not just the lives of those moving but also the safe delivery of humanitarian relief.

A group of HALO deminers with their equipment prepare for work. Credit: Tom Pilston/HALO

In Ukraine there has been extensive landmine use since Russia’s full-scale invasion of the country in February 2022. Russian forces have mined vast swathes of land, while there have been reports that Ukrainian forces have also used anti-personnel mines. It is estimated approximately 174,000 square kilometers, almost 30 percent of Ukraine’s territory, are affected by landmines and ERWs.

“According to NATO, Ukraine is now the world’s most mine-affected country and has seen the most mine laying since World War II.  The humanitarian impact of this contamination has been multifaceted—as well as vast swathes of prime farming land being contaminated, adversely affecting food security, civilian areas are also badly affected, including schools, residential zones, roads, and key infrastructure, leading to widespread displacement,” a spokesperson for the HALO Trust, a major humanitarian NGO carrying out demining operations around the world, including Ukraine, told IPS.

The spokesperson added that the effects of extensive landmine laying in the country may be felt for decades to come.

“HALO deminers are working in liberated areas, but it will take many years—if not decades— to clear Ukraine of landmines. Areas closest to the frontlines, such as Kharkiv and Sumy, are the areas where most people have been displaced, and some parts of these regions may remain uninhabitable until made completely safe. Any additional minelaying will extend the risk to civilian populations, agricultural production, and global trade for decades to come,” they said.

Anti-landmine campaigners also warn that if countries pull out of the Ottawa Convention, there is a risk that the use of landmines will become normalized.

“Increased acceptance [of landmines] could lead to wider proliferation and use, recreating the extensive contamination seen in Ukraine, Myanmar, and other conflict zones. In addition, withdrawal risks normalizing the rejection of humanitarian standards during times of insecurity, potentially undermining other crucial international norms. The ICBL has warned of a dangerous slippery slope where rejecting established norms during tense periods could lead to reconsideration of other banned weapons (e.g., chemical and biological weapons),” Charles Bechara, Communications Manager at ICBL, told IPS.

“Landmine survivors worldwide are shocked and horrified that European countries are about to undermine such progress and make the same mistake that dozens of other countries now regret. When European nations withdraw [from the Ottawa Convention], this sends a problematic message to countries facing internal or external security threats that such weapons are now acceptable,” he added.

However, it is not just withdrawals from the Ottawa Convention that are worrying anti-landmine groups.

Funding for demining efforts as well as services to help victims are under threat.

While the United States is not a signatory to the Ottawa Convention, it has been the largest contributor to humanitarian demining and rehabilitation programs for landmine survivors over the past 30 years. In 2023, it provided 39 percent of total international support to the tune of USD 310 million.

But the current halt to US foreign aid funding means that critical programs are now at risk, according to the ICBL.

“The US funding suspension threatens progress in heavily contaminated countries where casualty rates had been significantly reduced through consistent mine action work,” said Bechara.

He added the stop on funding would have “severe consequences for treaty implementation goals,” including the disruption or cessation of mine clearance operations in over 30 countries, a pause on victim assistance programs providing prosthetics and rehabilitation services, curtailment of risk education initiatives that help communities avoid mines, job losses at demining organizations, and problems implementing other humanitarian and development work because agencies depend on mine clearance to safely access areas.

Meanwhile, supporters of the Ottawa Convention are urging the countries currently intending to leave the landmine treaty to rethink their decisions.

“For Latvia and other countries considering withdrawal from the Mine Ban Convention, the ICBL is clear that weapons that predominantly kill and injure civilians cannot safeguard any nation’s security. Military experts, including Latvia’s own National Armed Forces commander, have concluded that modern weapon systems offer more effective defensive capabilities without the indiscriminate harm to civilians,” said Bechara.

“Despite the threats against the Mine Ban Treaty, the ICBL’s message is for countries to immediately cease their withdrawals and stand behind the treaty. Long-term security and safety cannot be ensured by a weakened international humanitarian law, which was conceived specifically to protect civilians in dire security situations,” he added.

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

• World Press Freedom Day 2025 Global Press Freedom Index Falls to Critical Low
• Funding Crunch Puts Years of Progress at Risk in Fight Against Tuberculosis
• Anti-LGBTQI Legislation in Europe Curbs Speech Freedom, Democracy—Report

Aerial view of Diff in Wajir South submerged in floodwaters, highlighting the devastating impact of heavy rains on homes and livelihoods - 2024. Credit: Pasca Chesach/Christian Aid Kenya

By Janet Ngombalu
NAIROBI, Kenya, May 5 2025 (IPS)

Reflecting on this year’s IMF/World Bank Spring Meetings, one word lingers in my mind: uncertainty. The shifting global geopolitical landscape loomed large—none more so than the US administration’s initial threat to withdraw from the Bretton Woods institutions.

Although that threat was later withdrawn, it’s clear the US wants sweeping reforms. What exactly those changes will look like remains unknown, but it’s clear that the US wants the IMF and World Bank to focus more on its biggest shareholders rather than people and the planet. For countries in the Global South, like my own—Kenya—that could be disastrous.

As the world knows, the people of Kenya made their frustrations against the IMF known last year, with protests against IMF fiscal and austerity policies. And this unrest led to President William Ruto withdrawing a finance bill aiming to raise more than $2 billion in taxes.

Then, just last month, a four-year $3.6 billion IMF deal was terminated by mutual agreement. A new deal is now being negotiated—but finding balance will be difficult. The IMF is demanding fiscal consolidation, while the government is under immense pressure to ease the burden on a struggling population.

Without raising taxes, Kenya faces drastic cuts to public spending. But the people have had enough—and they shouldn’t be forced to endure more.

Dead livestock in Bubisa, Marsabit County due to prolonged drought: Credit: Pasca Chesach/Christian Aid Kenya

This is happening at a critical moment. The IMF is undergoing two major reviews this year that will shape its lending and surveillance approach for the next five years. If the Trump administration gains more sway over IMF leadership, civil society fears a regression to the 1990s era of even harsher austerity.

The reality on the ground in Kenya makes this unacceptable. We already face high taxes, and cuts to essential services are tearing the social fabric apart. Our health system is stretched beyond its limits.

Last year, doctors were driven to suicide under the weight of low pay, impossible hours, and the heartbreak of losing patients due to inadequate care.

School feeding programmes – lifelines for many children – have been cut. For some, that was the only meal of the day. Businesses are closing, jobs are vanishing, and those of us still employed are helping family members who are struggling.

A resident of Makueni fetches water from a community booth made possible through Christian Aid Kenya’s sand dam project, offering a reliable water source amid prolonged drought. Credit: Fauzia Hussein/Christian Aid Kenya

Meanwhile, the US is calling on the IMF and World Bank to scale back focus on gender equality and climate change. This is deeply alarming. As Kenya’s country director for Christian Aid, I am currently seeking emergency funds to respond to severe flooding in Marsabit and Wajir in the northeast of the country, which have also been heavily affected by drought.

Kenya loses up to KSh870 billion every year, around 3–5% of GDP, due to climate impacts. Yet we’ve done almost nothing to cause this crisis.

Women in particular continue to bear the brunt of IMF-imposed austerity. They face rising food prices head-on, as the ones more responsible for food shopping. They dominate the informal and public sectors – precisely the sectors most affected by spending cuts.

We had started to make scant progress in getting the IMF to consider these gendered impacts. Now, that progress is under threat.

There’s also growing unease about the politicisation of global financial governance. If the US gains even more influence over the IMF, will there be favouritism in lending decisions? The recent cancellation of US Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s trip to Kenya, following President Ruto’s visit to China, raises eyebrows.

The rise of this selfish, unilateral approach is troubling—and it’s already hurting us. Massive aid cuts are hitting hard. In addition to the proposed $60 billion USAID budget reduction, the UK, Germany, France, and the Netherlands have announced cuts totalling over $11 billion combined.

It feels as though the Global South is being abandoned in a power struggle we didn’t start. The IMF and World Bank, created in the colonial era, have always tilted toward northern interests. The US holds 16% of IMF voting power and therefore a veto over most important decisions which require 85% agreement. Meanwhile, the entire African continent holds just 4.7%. That imbalance is not only unjust; it’s unsustainable.

And now, it could get worse. But there is hope.

The upcoming Financing for Development Conference in Seville this June offers a rare and crucial opportunity. It is the only global forum where all countries negotiate economic governance on equal terms.

We must seize this moment to push for meaningful reform—debt relief, fairer international tax rules, and real climate finance. These are the changes we need to unlock a future where all countries have the tools and autonomy to shape their own development.

We cannot afford more uncertainty. We need control over our economic destiny, not to be tossed around by the shifting whims of the Global North.

Bring on Seville. It’s time for change.

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:

Janet Ngombalu is Kenya Country Director, Christian Aid

By Jesselina Rana and Mandeep S.Tiwana
NEW YORK, May 5 2025 (IPS)

Climate change is threatening to engulf small island states such as Maldives and the Marshall Islands. Gender apartheid is still practiced in theocratic states such as Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. War crimes and genocide are taking place in the Occupied Palestinian Territories and Sudan.

Hunger looms large in the Congo and Yemen. People continue to be arbitrarily imprisoned in places as far apart as El-Salvador and Eritrea. Russia continues to violate Ukraine’s territorial integrity while China and the United States look the other way despite being permanent members of the UN Security Council.

Even a casual observer can concede that the UN’s mission to maintain peace and security, protect human rights and promote social progress along-with respect for international law is in crisis.

As the United Nations approaches its 80th anniversary this October, a pivotal question looms: Who should lead it into its next era? Surely, in a world impacted by multiple intersecting crises, the answer cannot be business as usual. After nearly eight decades, nine Secretary-Generals, and zero leaders from civil society—let alone a woman—the time for a transformative shift is now.

A movement is underway to demand a visionary Secretary-General who embodies feminist, principled, and courageous leadership. We need a world leader who will boldly stand up for human rights and ensure the inclusion of voices that have for too long been pushed to the margins, even as the UN faces questions about its financial sustainability.

Members of the Sub-commission on the Status of Women, from Lebanon, Poland, Denmark, Dominican Republic and India, prepare for a press conference at Hunter College in New York on 14 May 1946. Credit: UN Photo

Notably, since its inception the UN has been presided over by men, which is less than representative of the global community that the UN serves. Appointing a woman as Secretary-General would not only break this historical pattern but signal a commitment to gender equality and inspire women and girls worldwide, demonstrating that the highest levels of international leadership are accessible to all, regardless of gender. 92 states have already expressed support for a woman Secretary General.

The current Secretary General, Antonio Guterres is due to step down at end of December 2026 upon completion of his second term. The UN Charter mandates the appointment of the head of the UN by the General Assembly following the recommendation of the Security Council. Essentially, 9 out of 15 members of the Security Council must agree on the final recommendation to the General Assembly which then makes a decision on the final candidate through a majority vote.

All permanent members of the UN Security Council have the right to veto any candidate before a recommendation is made to the UN General Assembly. A lot of behind the scenes political wrangling takes place at this stage to select a candidate who will be acceptable to powerful states that seek to exert control over the UN, which is why the 1 for 8 billion campaign are demanding a process that is fair, transparent, inclusive, feminist and rigorous.

It’s no secret that the UN’s overly bureaucratic approaches and the inclination of its leadership to play safe in the face of multiple intersecting crises, including glaring violations of the UN Charter by powerful states are pushing the institution from being ineffective to becoming irrelevant.

Although many within the UN lay the blame on powerful states for co-opting the institution to assert narrow national interests and for not paying their financial dues, the problems run much deeper.

Ironically, civil society actors who work with the UN to fulfill its mission are being sidelined. In last year’s negotiations on the UN’s Pact for the Future and in current Financing for Development conversations, civil society delegates have struggled to find space to have their voices adequately included.

Many of us in civil society who have supported the UN through decades in the common quest to create more peaceful, just, equal and sustainable societies are deeply concerned about the current state of affairs.

Civil society actors have been instrumental in shaping some of the UN’s signature achievements such as the Paris Agreement on climate, the universal Sustainable Development Goals and the landmark Treaty on Enforced Disappearances. But diplomats representing repressive regimes are increasingly seeking to limit civil society participation.

These tactics are not isolated acts. They represent a coordinated, global assault on civic space and democratic norms. They are also contributory factors to the erosion of public trust in multilateral bodies which is threatening the legitimacy of the UN itself.

Tellingly, the long-standing demand for the appointment of a civil society envoy at the UN to streamline civil society participation across the UN system and to drive the UN’s outreach to civil society beyond major UN hubs has gone unheeded by the UN’s leadership.

Over the last decade and a half, civil society organisations and activists have faced a relentless assault from authoritarian-populist governments. The situation is alarming: latest findings of the CIVICUS Monitor, a participatory research collaboration, affirm that over 70% of the global population now live under repressive civic space conditions.

Across continents, activists are being illegally surveilled, arbitrarily imprisoned, and physically attacked. The right to peaceful protest is being quashed even in democracies. In far too many countries, independent civil society organisations are being dismantled and prevented from accessing funding. Just in the last two months, countries as diverse as Peru and Slovakia have introduced repressive anti-NGO laws.

As civic space closes, major financial supporters —from the US and UK to several EU states—are slashing official development assistance, thereby depriving civil society of crucial resources to resist these restrictions. A recent CIVICUS survey confirms that frontline efforts in health, civic engagement, and human rights are among the hardest hit.

The next Secretary-General must meet the crisis head-on. They must make the defence of civic space a strategic imperative. That means speaking out against governments that silence dissent and ensuring safe and meaningful participation for civil society at all levels. An effective way to do this would be to report on the implementation of the 2020 UN guidance note on civic space and accelerate its mainstreaming across the UN’s agencies and offices around the world.

Civil society remains a resilient engine for global progress. From climate justice and anti-corruption work to feminist organising, civil society groups often lead where governments and multilateral institutions falter. The UN would be well served by a Secretary General who sees civil society less as an after-thought and more as a co-creator of global policy who embodies feminist leadership principles and who understands that multilateralism cannot function without grassroots engagement—that justice, sustainability, and peace are not top-down aspirations, but bottom-up imperatives.

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:

Jesselina Rana is the UN Advisor at CIVICUS’s New York office. Mandeep S. Tiwana is Interim Co-Secretary General of CIVICUS, the global civil society alliance.

Sea of red indicates the parlous state of press freedom in the world. Credit: Reporters Without Borders

By Ed Holt
BRATISLAVA, May 2 2025 (IPS)

Global press freedom across the world is at a “critical moment,” campaigners have warned, as a major index mapping the state of global press freedom hits an unprecedented low.

In the latest edition of the annual press freedom index produced by Reporters Without Borders (RSF), which was published on May 2, the average score of all assessed countries fell below 55 points, falling into the category of a “difficult situation” for the first time in the index’s history.

More than six out of ten countries (112 in total) saw their overall scores decline in the index, while the conditions for practicing journalism are for the first time classified as poor in half of the world’s countries and satisfactory in fewer than one in four.

In 42 countries—harboring over half of the world’s population (56.7 percent)—the situation is “very serious,” according to the group. In these zones, press freedom is entirely absent and practicing journalism is particularly dangerous.

RSF says that while there has been a downward trend in press freedom globally for some time, the latest index scores are a distressing “new low.”

“Our index has been warning of this for the last ten years—the trajectory for press freedom has been a downward one—but this is a new low. Sixty percent of countries saw their scores [in the index] drop last year and the environment for media freedom globally has worsened. We are now at a critical moment for press freedom globally,” Fiona O’Brien, UK Bureau Director for RSF, told IPS.

Experts and campaigners have in recent years warned of growing threats to press freedom amid a rise of authoritarian regimes looking to muzzle dissent, as well as  growing economic pressures affecting the ability of independent media outlets to function.

RSF’s index is compiled using measurements of five different indicators—political context, legal framework, economic context, sociocultural context, and safety—to form an overall score. It says that this year the overall global index score was dragged down by the performance of the economic index.

It says that economic pressure is an often underestimated but major factor seriously weakening media in many countries. This pressure is being largely driven by ownership concentration, pressure from advertisers and financial backers, and public aid that is restricted, absent, or allocated non-transparently.

The group warns this is leaving many media trapped between preserving their editorial independence and ensuring their economic survival.

“The pressure on media sustainability is as bad as it has ever been,” said O’Brien.

The effects of this economic pressure have been severe. Data collected for the index indicates that in 160 out of the 180 countries assessed (88.9 percent), media outlets achieve financial stability “with difficulty” or “not at all.” Meanwhile, news outlets are shutting down due to economic hardship in nearly a third of countries globally.

While the struggles of media economies in some countries have been exacerbated by political instability, general lack of resources, and war, media in other rich, ostensibly more stable countries are also facing significant economic pressures.

RSF points out that in the US, a majority of journalists and media experts told the group that “the average media outlet struggles for economic viability.”

Meanwhile, independent media that rely heavily or exclusively on foreign funding have come under increasing pressure.

A freeze on funding for the US Agency for International Development (USAID), which halted US international aid earlier this year plunged hundreds of news outlets in different countries around the world into economic uncertainty or forced others to close.

This was particularly acute in Ukraine, where nine out of ten outlets receive international aid and USAID is the primary donor.

“The US cuts have had a profound effect there,” Jeanne Cavalier, head of RSF’s Eastern Europe and Central Asia desk, told IPS. “Independent media is vital in any country that is at war. It’s a real blow to press freedom in the country,” she said.

She added, though, that the cuts to US funding were “an existential threat to press freedom in all countries with authoritarian governments under Russian influence,” highlighting that exiled media in particular provide a vital service to people living under such regimes.

The Meduza news outlet is one of the most prominent exiled Russian media organizations. While more than half of its financing comes through crowdfunding, until earlier this year a part of its funding came via US grants.

The group said that the combined impact of the cut and previous financial problems presented a significant challenge to its operations. It was forced to cut its workforce by 15 percent and salaries were reduced.

Speaking to IPS at the time, Katerina Abramova, Head of Communications at Meduza, said the moves would “influence the diversity of our content.” But speaking this week after the release of RSF’s index, she said the group had managed to continue its work but admitted, “it is even more challenging now.”

“Our main goal is to maintain the quality of our reporting and to keep delivering news inside Russia,” she said.

However, she said she was concerned for the future of other organizations like Meduza as press freedom and the economic health of independent media wane globally.

“I hope that there will not be a complete loss of independent reporting on countries where free speech has become illegal. But I know that many independent newsrooms are suffering and are on the edge of closing. When you are in exile, you are in a vulnerable position, so such newsrooms face the most difficult challenges,” she told IPS.

“I am also worried that the USAID cuts may be seen as a ‘good sign’ for many authoritarian regimes around the world. They might say, ‘look, the USA also doesn’t like journalists anymore.’ It would be like a validation of what they are doing to independent media [in their own countries],” she added.

Meanwhile, other organizations have also raised the alarm over growing threats to press freedom, even in countries regarded as among the strongest democracies in the world.

While in the RSF index the European Union (EU)-Balkans zone had the highest overall score globally, and its gap with the rest of the world continued to grow, a report released this week by the Civil Liberties Union for Europe (Liberties) group highlighted how some EU governments were attacking press freedom and undermining independent media.

The report, based on the work of 43 human rights groups from 21 countries, warned that press freedom was being eroded across the bloc. It said EU media markets “feature high media ownership concentration, with these owners remaining obscured behind inadequate ownership transparency obligations, the continued erosion of public service media’s independence, ongoing threats and intimidation against journalists, and restrictions on freedom of expression and access to information.”

“The findings of this report should put EU officials on high alert: media freedom and pluralism are under attack across the EU, and in some cases they are in an existential battle against overtly undemocratic governments,” according to the group.

Liberties also warned that “EU legislation to bolster media freedom is being greeted with hostility, making enforcement efforts in 2025 and beyond decisive in protecting the free and plural media that European democracy depends on.”

However, it is this legislation, including the European Media Freedom Act (EMFA), which is designed to guarantee the protection of journalists and sources, independence of regulatory bodies and full ownership transparency, and the Anti-SLAPP Directive (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) to protect journalists and human rights advocates from abusive legal proceedings, that experts see as providing hope that some of the threats to media freedom can be dealt with.

“At the individual country level within the EU, there are some problems. Where there has been a recent change in government away from authoritarianism, there has been some positive progress, e.g., in Poland. But in other countries, like Slovakia, we are seeing the reverse,” Eva Simon, Senior Advocacy Officer at Liberties, told IPS.

“But at the EU level, we see positive prospects for media freedom in new legislation. The EU Media Act is coming into force soon and the anti-SLAPP directive will come into effect next year.

“The EU has the power to intervene in countries where there are persistent problems and we have high hopes that the EU will use its powers to enforce the European Media Freedom Act. The EU has more tools than ever at its disposal to ensure media freedom in member states,” she added.

On April 30, the Committee for the Protection of Journalists (CPJ) issued a damning report on how, since the start of US President Donald Trump’s second term in January, press freedom has come under attack.

The report warned that press freedom is no longer a given in the United States as journalists and newsrooms face mounting pressures that threaten both their ability to report freely and the public’s right to know.

It said the executive branch of the government was taking “unprecedented steps to permanently undermine press freedom” through restricting access for some news organizations, increasingly using government and regulatory bodies against media, and launching targeted attacks on journalists and newsrooms.

In a statement, CPJ CEO Jodie Ginsberg said, “This is a definitive moment for U.S. media and the public’s right to be informed. Whether at the federal or state level, the investigations, hearings, and verbal attacks amount to an environment where the media’s ability to bear witness to government action is already curtailed.”

The current threats to press freedom in the US are among the most worrying anywhere, many media experts say.

“There is a head-on attack on media freedom in the US. If you look at the scores for the US [in the index], the social indicator has dropped hugely, which shows that within the US the press is operating in a hostile environment. The economic situation there has deteriorated too, which makes things difficult for them,” said O’Brien.

“But also, a lot of people look to America as a bastion of press freedom, with its constitution’s First Amendment, and what is happening there to independent media is an absolute gift to authoritarian rulers around the world. If the rest of the world just sits back and watches this and lets press freedom be restricted and attacked and does nothing, other regimes will look and just think, ‘oh, it’s OK to do this.'”

“World leaders have to now stand up for press freedom. Independent journalism is fundamental to democratic societies,” she added.

 

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

• Funding Crunch Puts Years of Progress at Risk in Fight Against Tuberculosis
• Anti-LGBTQI Legislation in Europe Curbs Speech Freedom, Democracy—Report
• Human Rights, Healthcare Disrupted in Eastern Europe With USAID Funding Freeze

Protestors gather in front of the White House on Pennsylvania Avenue in 1966 to protest the Vietnam War. Credit: White House Historical Association

By Norman Solomon
SAN FRANCISCO, USA, May 2 2025 (IPS)

Eight years before the U.S.-backed regime in South Vietnam collapsed, I stood with high school friends at Manhattan’s Penn Station on the night of April 15, 1967, waiting for a train back to Washington after attending the era’s largest antiwar protest so far.

An early edition of the next day’s New York Times arrived on newsstands with a big headline at the top of the front page that said “100,000 Rally at U.N. Against Vietnam War.” I heard someone say, “Johnson will have to listen to us now.”

But President Lyndon Johnson dashed the hopes of those who marched from Central Park to the United Nations that day (with an actual turnout later estimated at 400,000). He kept escalating the war in Vietnam, while secretly also bombing Laos and Cambodia.

During the years that followed, antiwar demonstrations grew in thousands of communities across the United States. The decentralized Moratorium Day events on October 15, 1969 drew upward of 2 million people. But all forms of protest fell on deaf official ears. A song by the folksinger Donovan, recorded midway through the decade, became more accurate and powerful with each passing year: “The War Drags On.”

As the war continued, so did the fading of trust in the wisdom and morality of Johnson and his successor, Richard Nixon. Gallup polls gauged the steep credibility drop. In 1965, just 24 percent of Americans said involvement in the Vietnam War had been a mistake. By the spring of 1971, the figure was 61 percent.

The number of U.S. troops in Vietnam gradually diminished from the peak of 536,100 in 1968, but ground operations and massive U.S. bombing persisted until the signing of the Paris Peace Accords in late January 1973. American forces withdrew from Vietnam, but the war went on with U.S. support for 27 more months, until – on April 30, 1975 – the final helicopter liftoff from the roof of the U.S. embassy in Saigon signaled that the Vietnam War was indeed over.

By then, most Americans were majorly disillusioned. Optimism that public opinion would sway their government’s leaders on matters of war and peace had been steadily crushed while carnage in Southeast Asia continued. To many citizens, democracy had failed – and the failure seemed especially acute to students, whose views on the war had evolved way ahead of overall opinion.

At the end of the 1960s, Gallup found “significantly more opposition to President Richard Nixon’s Vietnam policies” among students at public and private colleges than in “a parallel survey of the U.S. general public: 44 percent vs. 25 percent, respectively.” The same poll “showed 69 percent of students in favor of slowing down or halting the fighting in Vietnam, while only 20 percent favored escalation.

This was a sharp change from 1967, when more students favored escalation (49 percent) than de-escalation (35 percent).”

Six decades later, it took much less time for young Americans to turn decisively against their government’s key role of arming Israel’s war on Gaza. By a wide margin, continuous huge shipments of weapons to the Israeli military swiftly convinced most young adults that the U.S. government was complicit in a relentless siege taking the lives of Palestinian civilians on a large scale.

A CBS News/YouGov poll in June 2024 found that Americans opposed sending “weapons and supplies to Israel” by 61-39 percent. Opposition to the arms shipments was even higher among young people. For adults under age 30, the ratio was 77-23.

Emerging generations learned that moral concerns about their country’s engagement in faraway wars meant little to policymakers in Washington. No civics textbook could prepare students for the realities of power that kept the nation’s war machine on a rampage, taking several million lives in Southeast Asia or supplying weapons making possible genocide in Gaza.

For vast numbers of Americans, disproportionately young, the monstrous warfare overseen by Presidents Johnson and Nixon caused the scales to fall from their eyes about the character of U.S. leadership. And like President Trump now, President Biden showed that nice-sounding rhetoric could serve as a tidy cover story for choosing to enable nonstop horrors without letup.

No campaign-trail platitudes about caring and joy could make up for a lack of decency. By remaining faithful to the war policies of the president they served, while discounting the opinions of young voters, two Democratic vice presidents – Hubert Humphrey and Kamala Harris – damaged their efforts to win the White House.

A pair of exchanges on network television, 56 years apart, are eerily similar.

In August 1968, appearing on the NBC program Meet the Press, Humphrey was asked: “On what points, if any, do you disagree with the Vietnam policies of President Johnson?”

“I think that the policies that the president has pursued are basically sound,” Humphrey replied.

In October 2024, appearing on the ABC program The View, Harris was asked: “Would you have done something differently than President Biden during the past four years?”

“There is not a thing that comes to mind,” Harris replied.

Young people’s votes for Harris last fall were just 54 percent, compared to 60 percent that they provided to Biden four years earlier.

Many young eyes recognized the war policy positions of Hubert Humphrey and Kamala Harris as immoral. Their decisions to stay on a war train clashed with youthful idealism. And while hardboiled political strategists opted to discount such idealism as beside the electoral point, the consequences have been truly tragic – and largely foreseeable.

Norman Solomon is the national director of RootsAction.org and executive director of the Institute for Public Accuracy. The paperback edition of his latest book, War Made Invisible: How America Hides the Human Toll of Its Military Machine, includes an afterword about the Gaza war.

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');