Africa - INTER PRESS SERVICE

Yamide Dagnet, Senior Vice President, International at the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). Credit: COP30

By Joyce Chimbi
NAIROBI, Jan 15 2026 (IPS)

President Donald Trump has escalated efforts to further distance the United States from international organizations and entities focused on climate, the environment, and energy. This strategy is in step with his administration’s established approach to undermine and redirect funds and international cooperation away from climate and clean energy programs.

But where some see a catastrophic escalation, other global experts, such as Yamide Dagnet, Senior Vice President, International at the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), see first and foremost a continuing formalization of damaging positions already taken by the current administration.

In January 2025, President Trump initiated a second withdrawal from the Paris Agreement on climate change to limit global warming. Simultaneously, the U.S. administration began to significantly reduce funding for climate programs, withdrawing from international climate funds such as the Green Climate Fund, cancelling billions in domestic clean energy grants, halting climate research and, overall, prioritizing fossil fuels over climate initiatives.

While conceding that the moment at hand is indeed overwhelming, especially coming on the back of COP30, Dagnet told IPS that “the rest of the world must turn this challenge into an opportunity to break new ground in climate action, financing and international cooperation.”

“I have a stubborn yet grounded optimism. The path ahead will be challenging but achieving the set-out climate goals is far from impossible. This is far from a catastrophe. Only one country has withdrawn from the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC); the rest of the world is still firmly on board.”

Regarding the exit from UNFCCC, Dagnet’s colleague Jake Schmidt from NRDC, pointed out in his blog that  the legal ramifications are such that it is unsettled constitutional law whether a president can unilaterally withdraw from international agreements that the Senate gave its advice and consent to join. The Constitution specifies the entry provisions, but it is silent on the exit provisions.

Dagnet also noted that while the withdrawal from the UNFCCC is unprecedented, making the United States the only nation outside the bedrock UN Climate Treaty, “the exit is not cast in stone; a future administration could bring the country back to the fold.”

Nevertheless, the United States will be back in the headlines come January 27, 2026, when the country will technically become a non-signatory to the Paris agreement and will not be part of international climate negotiations unless the withdrawal is reversed.

“The optimism I feel is also grounded in pragmatism. To borrow the words of author James Baldwin, ‘Not everything that is faced can be changed, but nothing can be changed until it is faced.’ The U.S. administration was not represented at COP30 and still the world pushed forward a comprehensive climate action agenda to move beyond pledges through accelerated collaboration between governments, businesses, civil society, and investors.”

In his 2025 inauguration speech, Trump called oil ‘liquid gold’ and vowed to ‘unleash’ America’s fossil fuels in the form of oil and gas. Dagnet says the die was already cast on the path forward for the United States and that the world should continue to rethink, re-strategize and reorganize, for those who are for climate action are more than those against.

Trump finds an assortment of 66 UN and non-UN entities, including those focused on climate and clean energy, that are not aligned with the United States’ national interests. They include the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which is the world’s most authoritative scientific body on climate change, UN water, UN Oceans and UN Energy.

Others are the International Union for Conservation of Nature, which is the global authority on technical and policy advice on conservation, and the UN Collaborative Programme on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing countries.

Non-UN organizations include the International Renewable Energy Agency, Renewable Energy Policy Network for the 21st Century, 24/7 Carbon-Free Energy Compact, Commission for Environmental Cooperation, Intergovernmental Forum on Mining, Minerals, and Sustainable Development, and the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services.

Concerns are rife that communities such as those in the informal settlements will be dangerously exposed to the vagaries of climate change in the face of looming budget cuts to support climate efforts. Credit: Joyce Chimbi/IPS

There are widespread concerns that the withdrawal will have far-reaching negative consequences on financing and technical support for climate and clean energy. But Dagnet reminds us that  the United States did not pay its dues to the UN in 2025. The UN Chief has expressed regret over the country’s exit from UN entities and urged the Trump administration to settle what is owed to the international body, as the payments are mandatory. The United States owes the largest share, amounting to about 22 percent of the regular budget.

Similarly, before this withdrawal, the United States was already failing to fulfill many of its climate finance commitments.  While this new development, alongside past insufficient funding pledges, signals a major retreat from international climate action and support for developing nations, that challenge is  not insurmountable.

Climate financing trackers found that even during President Joe Biden’s administration, the United States’ international climate finance contributions were insufficient and fell far short of goals. Dagnet notes that while the country’s actions on multilateralism represent a setback, multilateralism is also evolving and will hopefully be capable of navigating uncharted territories.

She hails the broad recognition that climate change urgently and sustainably requires global cooperation and collaboration. She further stressed that international cooperation would expand the climate finance basket, as financial support for climate action can come not only from governments but also from a diverse array of non-state and public-private actors.

“This withdrawal is not the end of the road.”

Dagnet is one of nine members of the GHG (Greenhouse Gas) Protocol Steering Committee, which is the primary governing body providing direction and oversight to the GHG Protocol. The Protocol provides accounting standards and tools to help the corporate sector, countries and cities track progress towards climate goals.

The development of such standards is facilitated through a transparent multi-stakeholder governance process, drawing on expertise from business, finance, governments, academia, auditors and civil society in a milestone move and landmark partnership, she says.

The GHG Protocol is leading the global harmonization of greenhouse gas accounting with the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), as part of the COP30 Action Agenda, to enable comprehensive decarbonization action. This collaborative effort will strengthen the enabling conditions (in terms of policy, benchmarking, and governance) that are paramount to achieving sectoral breakthrough and will shape the journey towards the next global stocktake, or inventory taking, on progress towards climate goals in line with the Paris Agreement.

Subnational efforts also keep Dagnet pragmatically optimistic and solutions-focused. Indeed, she felt energized after attending the Resilient Cities Forum 2025 in London, a remarkable highlight as a major international platform where global leaders and experts converged to tackle urban resilience, emphasizing collaboration, best practices and practical innovation for sustainable, equitable cities.  She was inspired by the various and clear visions for a healthier planet.

“The resolve was stronger than ever,” says Dagnet.

“Importantly, we have locally designed tools, international frameworks and corporate standards to turn our vision towards a more prosperous, healthier and greener future into our lived reality. The worst we can do is to give up our imagination and ability to innovate.”

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');  

Cardiologist Dr. Marwan Sultan, then Director of the Indonesian Hospital in north Gaza, in February 2025 showing damage to hospital equipment following an Israeli attack on the facility a few months prior. In July 2025, Dr. Sultan was killed in an Israeli strike on the apartment where he was sheltering with his family. Credit: PHR/GHRC

By Ed Holt
BRATISLAVA, Jan 14 2026 (IPS)

Israel must lift all restrictions on medicine, food and aid coming into Gaza, rights groups have demanded, as two reports released today (Jan 14) document how maternal and reproductive healthcare have been all but destroyed in the country.

In two separate reports released jointly, Physicians for Human Rights (with the Global Human Rights Clinic at the University of Chicago Law School) and Physicians for Human Rights–Israel (PHR-I) show how the war in Gaza has led to rising maternal and neonatal mortality, births under dangerous conditions, and the systematic destruction of health services for women in Gaza.

The reports from the two groups, which are independent organizations, provide both detailed clinical analysis of the collapse of Gaza’s health system and its medical consequences as well as firsthand testimonies from clinicians and pregnant and breastfeeding women in Gaza forced to live and care for their newborns in extreme conditions.

And the organizations say that with conditions improving only marginally for many women despite the current ceasefire, Israel must roll back restrictions placed on aid and immediately help ensure people in Gaza get access to the healthcare they need.

“Israel’s destruction of Gaza’s health infrastructure, combined with untreated malnutrition resulting from restrictions on food and medical supplies, including baby formula, has created an environment in which the fundamental biological processes of reproduction and survival have been systematically destroyed, resulting in known and foreseeable harm, pain, suffering, and death,” Sam Zarifi, Physicians for Human Rights (PHR) Executive Director, said.

“Israel must immediately allow food and essential medical material to enter Gaza with a proper medical plan for helping the besieged population,” he added.

Israeli military operations following Hamas’s attack on Israel on October 7, 2023, have left massive destruction across Gaza, including to healthcare facilities. According to UNICEF, 94 percent of hospitals have been damaged or destroyed.

Destroyed incubators and equipment at the Kamal Adwan Hospital Neonatal Intensive Care Unit in north Gaza, following the targeting and raid of the facility by the Israeli forces in December 2024. Credit: PHR/GHRC

Maternal and reproductive healthcare has suffered. Before the war, Gaza had eight neonatal intensive care units with 178 incubators. Today, the number of incubators has dropped by 70 percent. In the north, there were 105 incubators across three NICUs, now there are barely any functional units remaining, UNICEF told IPS.

It says that the numbers of low birth weight babies have nearly tripled compared to pre-war levels and the number of first-day deaths of babies increased by 75 percent.

The PHR and PHR-I reports paint a similar picture.

The PHR report, which focuses on the period between January 2025 and October 2025 when a ceasefire was agreed, details how between May and June last year, the Palestinian Ministry of Health reported a 41 percent decrease in the birth rate in Gaza compared to the same time period in 2022; there was a significant increase in miscarriages that affected more than 2,600 women, and 220 pregnancy-related deaths that occurred before delivery.

The ministry also reported a sharp increase in premature births and low birth weight cases; over 1,460 babies were reported to be born prematurely, while more than 2,500 were admitted to neonatal intensive care. Newborn deaths also increased, with at least 21 babies reported to have died on their first day of life.

Meanwhile, the PHR-I report includes personal testimonies illustrating the severe problems pregnant women and women with newborns have faced in Gaza during the war, from lacking safe routes to care and being forced to give birth in unsanitary, dangerous conditions to battling hunger and severe food shortages as they try to breastfeed their children.

One woman, Samah Muhammad Abu Mustafa, a 30-year-old mother of two from Khuza’a, Khan Youni, described how when her contractions began in the middle of the night, because there were no vehicles and very few ambulances, which are reserved for shelling or other critical emergencies, she had to walk a long distance through rain. When she eventually reached the hospital, she said it was “horrifying.”

“I swear, one woman gave birth in the corridor, and her baby died. It was very crowded, and the doctors worked nonstop. I felt as though I could give birth at any moment. After giving birth to my eldest daughter, I was told I should not deliver naturally again because my pelvis was too narrow. Despite this, the doctors said I would have to deliver naturally because a cesarean section required anesthesia, and there was not enough available. I stood for three hours until it was finally my turn, without sitting even for a moment,” she said.

But despite the October 2025 ceasefire, massive problems remain with women’s access to and the provision of, maternal and reproductive healthcare in Gaza.

“Maternal health units in Gaza are largely non-functional and face critical shortages of essential medicines, consumables, and equipment,” Lama Bakri, project coordinator in the Occupied Territories Department at PHR-I, told IPS.

“Neonatal and diagnostic equipment remains scarce or blocked, including portable incubators for premature and low-birth-weight newborns. Although some aid has entered since the ceasefire, these gaps are not being addressed at the scale required, and meaningful improvement in the immediate future remains unlikely.”

Malnutrition also remains a serious problem.

“The ceasefire has allowed us to significantly scale up our nutrition response, but we are still treating pregnant and breastfeeding women for acute malnutrition in alarmingly high numbers,” Ricardo Pires, Communication Manager, Division of Global Communications & Advocacy at UNICEF, told IPS.

He said that between July and September 2025 about 38 percent of pregnant women screened were diagnosed with acute malnutrition.

“In October alone, we admitted 8,300 pregnant and breastfeeding women for treatment, about 270 a day, in a place where there was no discernible malnutrition among this group before October 2023,” he added.

UNICEF has documented almost 6,800 children admitted for acute malnutrition treatment in November 2025 compared to 4,700 cases in November 2024. So far, the number of admitted cases more than doubled in 2025 compared to 2024: almost 89,000 admissions of children to date in 2025, compared to 40,000 cases in 2024, and almost none before 2023.

“What we’re seeing is that no child meets minimum dietary diversity standards, and two-thirds of children are surviving on just two food groups or less. Around 90 percent of caregivers reported their children had been sick in the previous two weeks, which compounds the malnutrition crisis,” Pires said.

And there are fears for the longer-term demographic future of Gaza given the damage to maternal and reproductive healthcare.

“For Gaza’s demographic future, the implications are serious. Even with reconstruction, we will be dealing with a generation of children who were scarred before they took their first breath, children who may face lifelong health complications, developmental challenges, and the effects of stunting. The rebuilding must start now, but we should be clear-eyed: the damage to maternal and newborn health will echo for years, potentially decades,” said Pires.

But others say that with cooperation between international actors and the right political will, the situation need not remain so dire.

“To rehabilitate the population after everything that has happened is going to be a real issue, [but] now there is a Board of Peace, the needs of pregnant women and maternal and reproductive healthcare can be prioritized,” Zarifi told IPS.

“The capacity and the will exist among Gazans and Gazan healthcare workers to rebuild the healthcare system, including maternal and reproductive health services,” added Bakri. “The primary obstacle is not technical or professional but political: Israel’s control over Gaza’s borders and the restrictions on the entry of essential equipment, medical supplies, and reconstruction materials. With unrestricted access to what is needed to rehabilitate hospitals, rebuild destroyed units, and restock essential medicines, recovery is entirely feasible. Whether maternal and reproductive healthcare can return to pre-war levels depends on sustained international pressure to allow that access.”

Although some aid has entered since the ceasefire, these gaps are not being addressed at the scale required, and meaningful improvement in the immediate future remains unlikely.

However, while both NGOs like PHR and PHR-I and others, alongside international bodies like the UN, stress that any recovery and reconstruction in Gaza requires the ceasefire to hold and consolidate, repeated violations underline its fragility, and the effect that has on women.

Meanwhile, PHR and PHR-I point out that extreme weather and ongoing Israeli restrictions on medicine and food getting to Gaza to this day continue to severely affect pregnant women, new mothers, and babies. On top of this, Israel has also announced it will bar 37 international aid groups from working in Gaza, potentially compounding the problems.

Bakri said such measures were jeopardizing what small gains had been made since the ceasefire and “raise serious concerns about whether the situation can improve.”

“Even after the ceasefire, while bombardment has decreased, the reality these women face remains catastrophic – not only for their bodies and well-being but for the survival of the entire society,” said Bakri.

Zarifi added, “We are worried that the restrictions placed by Israel on some of the major actors in the humanitarian response will hamper access to assistance for those that need it. We have raised questions with the Israeli government as to why specific medicines are not allowed to be brought into Gaza and they say that they are not stopping them from being brought in but they can be brought in by commercial means. That is hard for people who can barely put any money together. These medicines should definitely be coming in through humanitarian channels.”

He also highlighted how important the issue of accountability is in ensuring any progress is made in rebuilding healthcare in Gaza and also limiting the probability of similar devastation in the future.

Both reports concluded that the harms caused by Israeli attacks are not isolated incidents but part of an ongoing pattern of systematic damage to the health of women and their children in Gaza, amounting to reproductive violence.

Israel has denied this and said that attacks on hospitals in Gaza have been because the medical facilities are being used by Hamas, and it has maintained that its forces adhere to international law.

While under international law healthcare facilities have special protection even in war, and attacks on them are prohibited, that protection is lost if they are deemed to fulfill criteria to be considered military objectives, such as housing militaries and arms.

However, any attack on them must still comply with the fundamental principles of distinction, proportionality and precautions in attack and failure to respect any of these principles constitutes a breach of international humanitarian law, according to the UN.

“These attacks are part of a deliberate policy designed to create a domino effect of suffering. From starvation and militarized aid distribution by the GHF, to lack of access to clean water, repeated displacement orders, living in shelters under continuous bombardment, and exposure to infections, disease, and harsh weather, the attacks on maternal and reproductive healthcare are another piece of this puzzle. Together, these conditions were created to systematically destroy the fabric of life in Gaza and reduce the population’s ability to survive,” said Bakri.

“The Israeli government has justified attacks on healthcare facilities by saying this was a problem caused by Hamas. We haven’t had an indication of this but it might be true. But in any case there has to be an investigation of these incidents and we hope the Israeli government will carry out such an investigation,” said Zarifi.

“But what is really alarming to us is that the norms prohibiting attacks on healthcare have been repeatedly violated, and there are also laws governing the protection of women and children that appear to have been violated. The only thing that makes these norms work is accountability. There has to be accountability for what happened, as it is the only way we can ensure that what has happened won’t happen in other conflicts. Impunity is watched by other actors around the world,” 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');  

A mother and a son with mask were riding on a motorcycle in a street of Bangkok. The capital of Thailand experienced high level of PM2.5 particle pollution. Credit: Pexels/Maksim Romashkin

By Keran Wang, Sheryl Rose Reyes and Taisei Ukita
BANGKOK, Thailand, Jan 14 2026 (IPS)

Take a deep breath.

Did you know that in many countries in Asia and the Pacific, the air we breathe falls short of the safety standards for air quality set by the World Health Organization? While the start of a new year signals new beginnings, it also marks the continuation of the recurring air quality crisis across many countries in the region.

In 2024, 25 of the most polluted cities were in the Asia-Pacific region, with dangerous levels of fine particulate matter (PM2.5) that significantly exceeded the annual maximum levels of 5 micrograms per cubic meter.

Oftentimes, when we think of air pollution, we associate it with car exhaust and factory chimneys belching black smoke. But air pollution is not just the cost of urban development – it is a multi-hazard crisis caused by wildfires, sand and dust storms, and volcanic eruptions that respect no borders. Access to clean air is a human right and countries who contribute the least to air pollution are often the most vulnerable.

Rising temperatures create a vicious cycle: rising heat leads to intensifying wildfires, releasing toxic smoke composed of carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, and PM2.5 into the air we breathe. Furthermore, heat accelerates the breakdown of waste, generating even more pollutants.

Volcanic eruptions add sulfur dioxide and volcanic ash to the mix, and these pollutants can linger in the atmosphere for months. The result? Climate change exacerbates air pollution, which in turn aggravates the climate crisis — a feedback loop that puts both human health and ecosystems at risk and transforms local hazards into regional challenges.

Can a heavily polluted environment be restored? In principle, yes, but doing so requires transformative change and collective action in our economy and society. Improving urban mobility requires prioritizing efficient public transport, including low-emission vehicles, cleaner, greener alternatives such as walking, cycling, and ride-sharing.

Nature-based solutions, including green cooling corridors, can further improve air quality by lowering surface temperatures and providing buffers against desertification, land degradation, drought, and sand and dust storms.

However, not all sources of air pollution can be addressed through emission reductions alone. There are inherent limits to prevention at the source, particularly for air pollution caused by natural hazards. This requires a shift in focus from mitigation toward adaptation and preparedness.

Earth observation plays a critical role in monitoring, early warning, and informed decision-making. Advanced sensors aboard platforms such as Sentinel-5 Precursor and Geostationary Environment Monitoring Spectrometer (GEMS) detect key atmospheric pollutants including nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), tropospheric ozone, and carbon monoxide at unprecedented spatial and temporal scales.

The collaboration of ESCAP with regional partners for the Pan-Asia Partnership for Geospatial Air Pollution Information exemplifies how satellite data can be integrated with surface observations to create robust monitoring systems. These datasets enable tracking transboundary pollution events, from agricultural fire smoke to volcanic sulfur emissions to urban photochemical smog.

Satellites bridge the existing gaps from ground-based observations, providing authorities with the spatial coverage needed to understand and monitor air pollution and formulate effective policies.

The Clean Air for Sustainable ASEAN project recognizes that addressing the transboundary air pollution crisis requires strengthened monitoring and decision-making capacities enabled by technology-driven solutions. The application, Check Phoon (Thai: Phoon, meaning dust), or the PM2.5 Monitoring System, developed by the Geo-informatics Information and Space Technology Development Agency of Thailand, is an innovative platform that leverages space technology to support air quality monitoring and public health protection by providing real-time, high-resolution PM2.5 concentration data across Thailand.

The application is available in both web-based and mobile applications, and the system integrates satellite data, such as from Himawari, meteorological information, PM2.5 sources including hotspots (active fire detections), and ground-based validation from PM2.5 monitoring stations.

Building on the framework of SatGPT for flood hotspot mapping, an iteration of SatGPT for volcanic hazards has been proposed with potential to support the understanding and management of air pollution linked to volcanic activity. has been proposed with potential to support the understanding and management of air pollution linked to volcanic activity.

The Regional Action Programme on Air Pollution advances air quality management through science-based cooperation, sharing of best practices, and strengthened technical and financial support across ESCAP member States.

Complementing this effort, the Regional Space Applications Programme facilitates the sharing of Earth observation data and expertise that are critical for monitoring air pollution and assessing the impacts.

These initiatives contribute to accessible and actionable geospatial information that strengthens early warning systems, enabling authorities to forecast and quantify air quality with greater precision.

The transboundary nature of air pollution demands a stronger and more urgent call to action. While the Asia-Pacific region has demonstrated remarkable resilience in the face of cascading disasters, regional cooperation must accelerate to match the scale and pace of this evolving crisis.

Keran Wang is Chief of Space Applications Section, ESCAP; Sheryl Rose Reyes is Consultant, Space Applications Section, ESCAP; Taisei Ukita is former Intern, Space Applications Section, ESCAP.

The authors would like to thank Sangmin Nam, Director of the Environment and Development Division of ESCAP, for his contributions to this article.

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 SWAN
Jan 13 2026 (IPS)

Nomadic Jamaican-American writer Claude McKay probably never dreamed that 21st-century readers would be delving into his private correspondence some 77 years after his death. But that’s probably part of the professional hazard (luck?) of being a literary luminary, or, as Yale University Press describes him, “one of the Harlem Renaissance’s brightest and most radical voices”.

The Press recently released Letters in Exile: Transnational Journeys of a Harlem Renaissance Writer, edited by Brooks E. Hefner and Gary Edward Holcomb.

This is a comprehensive collection of “never-before-published dispatches from the road” with correspondents who have equally become cultural icons: Langston Hughes, W. E. B. Du Bois, Marcus Garvey, Pauline Nardal, Arturo Alfonso Schomburg, Max Eastman and a gamut of other writers, editors, activists, and benefactors. The letters cover the years 1916 to 1934 and were written from various cities, as McKay travelled extensively.

While he’s considered a central figure in the Harlem Renaissance, McKay was a cosmopolitan intellectual - an author ahead of his time, writing about race, inequality, the legacy of slavery, queerness, and a range of other topics

His daughter Ruth Hope McKay, whom the writer apparently never met in life (perhaps because British authorities at the time prevented him from returning to Jamaica), sold and donated his papers to Yale University from 1964 on.

The papers include his letters to her as well, and cast a light on this “singular figure of displacement, this critically productive internationalist, this Black Atlantic wanderer”, as a French translator has called him. But reading another’s correspondence, even that of a long-dead scribe, can feel like an intrusion. It’s a sensation some readers will need to overcome.

Born in 1890 (or 1889) in Clarendon, Jamaica, McKay left the Caribbean island for the United States in 1912, and his wanderings would later take him to countries such as Russia, England, France and Morocco, among others.

His acclaimed work includes the poem “If We Must Die” (written in reaction to the racial violence in the United States against people of African descent in mid-1919), the poetry collections Songs of Jamaica and Harlem Shadows, and the novels Home to Harlem, Banjo, and Banana Bottom.

Years after his death in 1948, scholars discovered manuscripts that would be posthumously published: Amiable with Big Teeth (written in 1941 and published in 2017) and Romance in Marseille (written in 1933 and published in 2020). McKay also authored a memoir titled A Long Way from Home (1937).

While he’s considered a central figure in the Harlem Renaissance, McKay was a cosmopolitan intellectual – an author ahead of his time, writing about race, inequality, the legacy of slavery, queerness, and a range of other topics.

He wrote in a sharp, striking, often ironic or satirical way, and Letters in Exile reflects these same qualities. The collection “reveals McKay gossiping, cajoling, and confiding as he engages in spirited debates and challenges the political and artistic questions of the day,” according to the editors.

Some of the most interesting letters deal with France, the setting of a significant part of McKay’s oeuvre and a place where his literary stature has been rising over the past decade, through a rush of new translations, colloquia, and even a film devoted to his life: Claude McKay, From Harlem to Marseille (or in French, Claude McKay, de Harlem à Marseille), directed by Matthieu Verdeil and released in 2021.

The cover of Letters in Exile

McKay was the “first twentieth-century Black author associated with the United States to be widely celebrated in France,” write editors Hefner and Holcomb in their introduction. They say the letters show that France shaped McKay’s world view, and that he considered himself a Francophile as well as a perpetual étranger.

Through the selected correspondence, we see McKay experiencing France in a variety of ways – dealing with winter insufficiently dressed, participating in the community of multi-ethnic outsiders in Marseille, rubbing shoulders with various personalities during the Années folles, or observing French colonialism in Morocco. And nearly always short of funds.

In Paris in January 1924, after a bout of sickness, he wrote to New York-based social worker and activist Grace Campbell that he’d had the “bummest holiday” of his life: “I was down with the grippe for 10 days and only forced myself to get up on New Year’s day. I suffer because I’m not properly clothed to stand the winter. I’m wondering if anything can be done over there to raise a little money to tide me over these bad times.”

A month later, he wrote to another correspondent about the “cold wave” numbing his fingers and of having to sleep with his “old overcoat” next to his skin, while still not being able to keep warm. He also found the “French trading class” to be “terrible”, complaining that “they cheat me going and coming”.

During his early time in France, he called Marseilles a “nasty, repulsive city”. But a few years later, writing to teacher and arts patron Harold Jackman in 1927, McKay stated: “I am doing a book on Marseille. It’s a tough, picturesque old city and I would love to show it to you some day.”

Apart from references to his work, McKay discussed global events in his correspondence, made his opinions known, and described relationships. His letters, say Hefner and Holcomb, are at the very least “an essential companion to his most revolutionary writings, from the groundbreaking poetry he produced after he left Jamaica through his trailblazing novels and short fiction and into his extraordinary memoirs and journalism.”

While this may well be true, and as insightful as the correspondence proves, many readers will still have to reckon with the uncomfortable sensation of being a literary voyeur. – AM/SWAN

Refugees by Honoré Daumier (1808-1879)

By Jan Lundius
STOCKHOLM, Sweden, Jan 13 2026 (IPS)

At the moment, ICE’s advancement in the U.S. is apparently dividing the nation’s population into desired and undesirable elements. The Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) was born after the September 11, 2001 attacks on the Twin Towers and intended to be a response to terrorism. However, with Donald Trump’s return to the White House, federal immigration agents have become the president’s praetorian guard, implementing his immigration politics.

ICE has currently 22,000 employees, a number destined to grow thanks to new recruits. Its budget is USD 30 billion a year. During 2025, the agency’s spending on fire arms has grown 600 percent. Its agents generally act with their faces covered, and move around heavily armed, in unmarked vehicles.

ICE agent, photo from Huffington Post

In 2025, US deportations did last year surge with over 622,000 official removals and an additional 1.9 million self-deportations, totalling over 2.5 million people leaving the U.S. This forced migration has been likened to ethnic cleansing, i.e. the systematic forced removal of ethnic, racial, or religious groups from a given area, with the intent of making a society ethnically homogenous. An interpretation which appears not to be entirely unreasonable considering President Trump’s constantly repeated rhetorics. Politics that might be compared to similar xenophobic statements from a number of so-called patriotic parties in Europe.

This while it has been indicated that between 900,000 and 1.6 million Ukrainians on Russian-occupied territories have been deported to Russia, including 260,000 children. Outside of Europe similar activities are taking place in several other areas. For example, in Gaza where from the beginning of the Gaza war on 13 October 2023, the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) forced the evacuation of 1.1 million people from Northen Gaza, while the land strip has been bombed and destroyed.

We have to admit that after reaching catastrophic dimensions during the last century the phenomenon of ethnic cleansing is still with us. As the herd animals that we are, we humans have become afflicted with the unfortunate trait of dividing individuals into groups, which we judge and treat according to broad generalizations based on people’s group affiliation, regardless of their unique personality.

Given the xenophobic storms now raging in both in the U.S. and Europe, it may be appropriate to recall the human disasters that such behaviour has caused on their continents. The genocide that the indigenous people of the U.S. were subjected to is well known, and also when during World War II U.S. forcibly relocated and incarcerated about 120,000 U.S, citizens of Japanese descent in various concentration camps. Lesser known is probably the forced deportation of between 300,000 and 2 million Mexicans and Mexican-Americans during the Great Depression between 1929 and 1939, forty to sixty percent of them were U.S, citizens and overwhelmingly children.

The European 20th century history of mass deportations and human slaughter is even darker. It began at the outskirts of the continent when Russian forces between 1863 and 1878 invaded Circassia by the Black Sea, systematically killing and deporting 95 to 97 percent of its population, resulting in the deaths of between 1 and 1.5 million. This was followed by the pogroms, i.e. mass killings of Jews, in for example Odessa (1881), Kishinev (1903), Kiev (1905), and Bialystok (1906), leaving more than 2,000 dead and resulting in a mass migration of Jews from the affected areas, worsened during the following civil war when 35,000 to 250,000 Jews were massacred between 1918 and 1920. At the same time the Bolshevik regime killed and/or deported an estimated 300,000 to 500,000 Don Cossacks.

After World War I between 90,000 and 300,000 Albanians were deported from Yugoslavia and up to 80,000 were killed during this new nation’s colonization of Kosovo. The expulsion and genocide of Armenians and Greeks which occurred in Turkish Anatolia both during and after World War I resulted in mass migrations and between 2 and 3 million Armenians, Greeks and Assyrians were killed. Over 1.2 million ethnic Greeks were expelled from Turkey in 1922-1924, while the Greeks expelled 400,000 Muslims.

Even worse was to come. Between 1935 and 1945, Nazi Germany systematically killed an estimated 130,500 Roma and Sinti people and between 1938 and 1945 more than 6 million Jews. During the same period Nazi German forces killed 3 million Ukrainians, 1,6 million Poles, 1,6 million Russians, 1,4 million Byelorussians. The German allies in Croatia massacred between 200,000 and 500,000 Serbs, as well as approximately 25,000 Roma/Sinti and 30,000 Jews. Their adversaries, the Serbs, killed 32,000 Croats and 33.000 Bosniaks.

The overwhelming part of all these victims were civilians, not combatants, and the estimations above are only some examples of massacres and deportations that occurred all over Europe during World War II.

In the Soviet Union (USSR), Stalin ordered the resettlement of more than 3,5 million ethnic minorities – Ukrainians, Volga Germans, Chechens, Balts, Kalmyks, Crimean Tatars, Balkars, Karachays, Turks, and Ingush. Many of them never returned to their homelands and up to 400,000 deaths due to these expulsions were archived by Soviet authorities.

Before that the Holodomor, a massive man-made famine from 1932 to 1933 had killed 3.5 to 5 million in Ukraine, as well as 62,000 in the Kuban area, while over 300,000 Ukrainians were deported to Kazakhstan, where many died.

All these numbers are just estimations and they might be higher or lower. However, we have to keep in mind that behind every single number we find cruelty and unimaginable suffering.

At the conclusion of World War I, it was borders that were invented and adjusted, while people were on the whole left in place, but during and after World War II what happened was rather the opposite – boundaries remained broadly intact (though USSR significantly expanded its territory) and people were moved instead … millions of them.

For example, 1.6 to 2 million Poles were by the invading Germans expelled from their lands, not counting millions of slave workers deported from Poland to the German Reich. At the same time the USSR transferred 380,000 Poles from their home territories, while 410 000 Finns had to leave Karelia, ceded to the USSR.

On top of that, losses on the battle fields were enormous – Soviet Union lost 6 million soldiers, Germany 4 million, Italy 400,000, and Romania 300,000. If combining military and civilian losses Poland lost one person in 5 of her pre-war population, Yugoslavia one in 8 and Greece one in 14, compared with one in 15 in Germany and 1one in 77 in France.

Nazi Germany captured 5.5 million Soviet soldiers and out of them 3.3 million died in the camps, of the 750,000 German soldiers captured by USSR 20,000 survived.

All this cruelty continued after the war and it was now members of ethnic groups connected with loosing nations who were lumped together into one unit, where individuals came to suffer, both the guilty and the innocent ones.

At the Potsdam Conference from 17 July to 2 August 1945 the heads of the leading Allies – the USSR, the United Kingdom, and the U.S. – agreed upon “orderly and humane” expulsions of the “German populations” from Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary, but not Yugoslavia and Romania. As a result, between 13,5 and 16.5 million “ethnic Germans” were expulsed from Central and Eastern European countries.

Estimates of the number of those who died during this process are being debated and range from a half to 3 million. As an example, investigations by a joint German and Czech commission of historians did in 1995 established that 2.1 million ethnic Germans were deported from Czechoslovakia to Germany. The death toll was at least 15,000 persons, but it could range up to a maximum of 30,000 dead, if one assumes that many deaths were not reported.

Yugoslavia was a particularly horrifying example of ethnic cleansing both during and after World War II. As mentioned above Croats and Serbs constantly massacred each other. During the so called foibe massacres (foibes are sink holes common in the region and many victims were thrown into them) ethnic Italians were killed by Communist partisans. During and after the war these crimes caused an exodus amounting to between 230,000 and 350,000 “ethnic Italians”, estimates of massacred victims range from 3,000 to 11,000.

These are just a few examples of expulsions and massacres of some Europeans, without mentioning the horrible fate of many Greeks, Albanians, Bulgarians, Hungarians, Turks, and many others who happened to be minorities in countries where they had lived for centuries. While considering this often forgotten, or at least unmentioned, history of millions of unwelcomed victims and refugees criss-crossing a bombed out and miserable Europe it is difficult to comprehend that so many descendants of these suffering people are now gathering around xenophobic parties which make refugeeism, whether for one’s life, or due to general misery, a crime.

Contemplating the heavily armed ICE agents in the U.S. “liberating” their nation from “foreign elements” you might easily evoke images of equally armed SS troopers, Soviet NKVD agents, Romanian Iron Guards, Croatian Ustaše and many similar units who expelled, and often killed, ethnic groups all over Europe.

Main sources: Judt, Tony (2005) Postwar: A History of Europe since 1945. London: Vintage. Lieberman, Benjamin (2013) Terrible Fate: Ethnic Cleansing in the Making of Modern Europe. Lanham MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Totten, Samuel et al., eds. (1997) Century of Genocide; Eyewitness Accounts and Critical Views. New York: Garland Publishing.

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');  

Credit: Oxfam

By Oxfam
LONDON, Jan 13 2026 (IPS)

The richest 1% have exhausted their annual carbon budget – the amount of CO2 that can be emitted while staying within 1.5 degrees of warming – only ten days into the year, according to new analysis from Oxfam. The richest 0.1% already used up their carbon limit on the 3rd January.

This day – named by Oxfam as ‘Pollutocrat Day’ – highlights how the super-rich are disproportionately responsible for driving the climate crisis.

The emissions of the richest 1% generated in one year alone will cause an estimated 1.3 million heat-related deaths by the end of the century. Decades of over consumption of emissions by the world’s super rich are also causing significant economic damage to low and lower-middle income countries, which could add up to $44 trillion by 2050.

To stay within the 1.5 degrees limit, the richest 1% would have to slash their emissions by 97% by 2030. Meanwhile, those who have done the least to cause the climate crisis – including communities in poorer and climate-vulnerable countries, Indigenous groups, women and girls – will be the worst impacted.

“Time and time again, the research shows that governments have a very clear and simple route to drastically slash carbon emissions and tackle inequality: by targeting the richest polluters.

By cracking down on the gross carbon recklessness of the super-rich, global leaders have an opportunity to put the world back on track for climate targets and unlock net benefits for people and the planet,” said Oxfam’s Climate Policy Lead Nafkote Dabi.

On top of their lifestyle emissions, the super-rich are also investing in the most polluting industries. Oxfam’s research finds that each billionaire carries, on average, an investment portfolio in companies that will produce 1.9 million tonnes of CO2 a year, further locking the world into climate breakdown.

The wealthiest individuals and corporations also hold disproportionate power and influence. The number of lobbyists from fossil fuel companies attending the recent COP summit in Brazil, for example, was more than any delegation apart from the host nation, with 1600 attendees.

“The immense power and wealth of super-rich individuals and corporations have also allowed them to wield unjust influence over policymaking and water down climate negotiations.” Dabi added.

Oxfam calls on governments to slash the emissions of the super-rich and make rich polluters pay through:

Increase taxes on income and wealth of the Super-rich and proactively support and engage on the negotiations for the UN Convention of International Tax Cooperation to deliver a fairer global architecture.

Excess profit taxes on fossil fuel corporations. A Rich Polluter Profits Tax on 585 oil, gas and coal companies could raise up to US $400 billion in its first year, equivalent to the cost of climate damages in the Global South.

Ban or punitively tax carbon-intensive luxury items like super-yachts and private jets. The carbon footprint of a super-rich European, accumulated from nearly a week of using super yachts and private jets, matches the lifetime carbon footprint of someone in the world’s poorest 1 percent

Build an equal economic system that puts people and planet first by rejecting dominant neoliberal economics and moving towards an economy based on sustainability and equality. 

The International Court of Justice (ICJ), the world’s highest court, has confirmed that countries have a legal obligation to reduce emissions enough to protect the universal rights to life, food, health, and a clean environment. 

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');  

Credit: United Nations

By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Jan 13 2026 (IPS)

Judging by the mass US withdrawal from 66 UN entities, including UN conventions and international treaties, is it remotely possible that the unpredictable Trump administration may one day decide to pull out of the UN, and force the Secretariat out of New York– despite the 1947 UN-US headquarters agreement?

Besides the 66, the withdrawals also include the pullouts from the Human Rights Council, the WHO, UNRWA and UNESCO– while imposing drastic reductions in funding for the remaining UN entities the US has not yet formally exited.

So, will the United Nations, which has come under heavy fire, be far behind?

That possibility is strengthened by the critical views of the UN both by President Trump and senior US officials.

Dr Stephen Zunes, Professor of Politics, University of San Francisco, who has written extensively on issues relating to the United Nations, told IPS even the U.S. presidents most hostile to the United Nations– like Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush– recognized the importance of the world body in terms of advancing U.S. interests, including understanding the importance of maintaining the UN system as a whole, even while violating certain legal principles in particular cases.

Similarly, he pointed out, the United States was willing to participate in various UN bodies in an effort to wield influence, even while disagreeing with some of their policies or even their overall mandates.

“The Trump administration, however, appears to be rejecting the post-WWII international legal system as a whole. His statements, particularly since the attack on Venezuela, appear to be a throwback to the 19th-century imperial prerogatives and a rejection of modern international law.”

“As a result, it is possible that Trump could indeed pull the United States out of the United Nations and force the UN out of New York”, declared Dr Zunes.

Addressing the General Assembly last September, Trump remarked, “What is the purpose of the United Nations? It’s not even coming close to living up to [its] potential.”

Dismissing the U.N. as an outdated, ineffective organization, he boasted, “I ended seven wars, dealt with the leaders of each and every one of these countries, and never a phone call from the United Nations offering to help in finalizing the deal.”

Martin S. Edwards, Associate Dean of Academic and Student Affairs, School of Diplomacy and International Relations at Seton Hall University, told IPS “this is dubious language about cutting inefficiency and fighting diversity wrapped up in red meat to feed President Trump’s base”.

It’s a ploy to use foreign affairs to distract voters for whom he has yet to deliver. The fact that the actual follow-up documents haven’t been received by the Secretary General tells you everything here. It fits a pattern of the President carving out maximalist positions and then getting very little in the end, he pointed out.

But it’s a bigger challenge, he said, on two fronts:

1. This is going to continue to REDUCE US influence at the UN rather than increase it. Stable foreign relations are based on credibility. The US continues to squander its reserves, and other countries will step into the vacuum.

2. This policy might have been a good social media post for voters, but makes little sense in practice. What the White House wants is a line-item veto over every single aspect of UN operations. But assessed contributions are not an ala carte menu, declared Edwards.

Mandeep S. Tiwana, Secretary General, CIVICUS, a global alliance of civil society organizations, told IPS retreat from international institutions by the Trump Administration is an attack on the legacy of President Franklin D. Roosevelt who gave the people of the United States the New Deal and envisioned a bold framework for the establishment of the UN to overcome the horrors of the Second World War.

“Many of the impacted international institutions were built through the blood, sweat and tears of Americans. Pulling out of these institutions is an affront to their sacrifices and reverses decades of multilateral cooperation on peace, human rights, climate change and sustainable development,” he said.

Meanwhile, the attacks on the UN have continued unabated.

In an interview with Breitbart News, U.S. Representative to the United Nations Ambassador Mike Waltz said, “A quarter of everything the UN does, the United States pays for”.

“Is there money being well spent? I’d say right now, no, because it’s being spent on all of these other woke projects, rather than what it was originally intended to do, what President Trump wants it to do, and what I want it to do, which is focus on peace.”

Historically, the United States has been the largest financial contributor, typically covering around 22% of the UN’s regular budget and up to 28% of the peacekeeping budget.

Still, ironically, the US is also the biggest defaulter. According to the UN’s Administrative and Budgetary Committee, member states currently owe $1.87 billion of the $3.5 billion in mandatory contributions for the current budget cycle.

The former US House Republican Conference Chair Elise Stefanik of New York, a one-time nominee for the post of US Ambassador to the UN, was quoted as saying, “In the UN, Americans see a corrupt, defunct, and paralyzed institution more beholden to bureaucracy, process, and diplomatic niceties than the founding principles of peace, security, and international cooperation laid out in its charter.”

Meanwhile, in a veiled attack on the UN, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said, “What we term the “international system” is now overrun with hundreds of opaque international organizations, many with overlapping mandates, duplicative actions, ineffective outputs, and poor financial and ethical governance.”

Even those that once performed useful functions, he pointed out, have increasingly become inefficient bureaucracies, platforms for politicized activism or instruments contrary to our nation’s best interests, he said.

“Not only do these institutions not deliver results, they obstruct action by those who wish to address these problems. The era of writing blank checks to international bureaucracies is over,” declared Rubio

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');  

UN’s ‘responsibility to deliver’ will not waver, after US announces withdrawal from dozens of international organizations. Credit: UN Photo/Loey Felipe
 
“Take up the White Man’s burden — Send forth the best ye breed… By all ye cry or whisper, by all ye leave or do, [T]he silent, sullen peoples shall weigh your gods - and you…” -- Rudyard Kipling, The White Man’s Burden: The United States and the Philippine Islands (1899)

By Azza Karam
NEW YORK, Jan 12 2026 (IPS)

We’re living in an age where the world is loudly proclaiming the death of empire, yet reproducing its structures. This is not nostalgia for colonial postcards — it’s a reinvention of foreign policy, international governance and global economic power that resembles colonial logic far more than it does meaningful cooperation.

The term “New Colonialism” feels extreme until you look not at poetry, but at power in motion — from military takeovers and genocides, to diplomatic withdrawal, to institutions that still perpetuate inequality and human rights’ abuses under the guise of neutrality.

I – Where Are We Today

“Imperialism after all is an act of geographical violence through which virtually every space in the world is explored, charted, and finally brought under control.”
— Edward Said, Culture and Imperialism (1993)

In January 2026, the United States executed what amounts to the most dramatic foreign intervention in Latin America in decades: a military incursion into Venezuela resulting in the abduction of President Nicolás Maduro. President Donald Trump openly declared that the U.S. would “run the country until such time as we can do a safe, proper and judicious transition.” This is not coded language — it is overt control.

Critics and allies alike see the move not as a limited counternarcotics or law enforcement operation (as the Administration frames it), but as a return to the old playbook of hemispheric domination. Latin American governments from Mexico to Brazil condemned it as a violation of sovereignty — a modern mirror to the regime-change interventions of the 20th century.

Analysts at Foreign Policy have highlighted precisely how this intervention fits into a larger pattern of U.S. foreign policy ambition. Rishi Iyengar and John Haltiwanger note that under the banner of battling “narcoterrorism,” the United States has expanded the role of its military into actions that blur the distinction between security and political control — “adding bombing alleged drug traffickers to its ever-growing list of duties.”

Such actions reflect a foreign policy that is increasingly militarized and deeply unilateral in its execution.

This intervention was not an isolated blip. It fits into a broader dynamic which suggests Washington’s moves in Venezuela are less about drug interdiction and more about strategic positioning and resource control — especially Venezuela’s vast oil reserves.

In the context of a “World-Minus-One” global order where U.S. power is contested by China and Russia, interventionist impulses have resurfaced not as humanitarian projects but as geopolitical gambits.

Viewed through the lens of colonial critique, the language of “rescuing” Venezuelans from an accused dictator echoes Kipling’s exhortation to take up the supposed moral burden. But those centuries-old justifications masked violence and labour exploitation; today’s rhetoric masks geopolitical self-interest.

The U.S. claims to be liberating Venezuelans from authoritarianism, yet asserts control over governance and economic infrastructure — a 21st-century version of telling another nation it cannot govern itself without direction from Washington. The result is not liberation, but dependency — a hallmark of colonial relationships.

II. The U.S. Withdrawal from Multilateral Institutions

“The White Man’s Burden, which puts the blame of the new subjects upon themselves without acknowledging the real burden — the systematic, structural and often violent exploitation — is the oldest myth of empire.”

Kumari Jayawardena, The White Woman’s Other Burden: Western Women and South Asia During British Colonial Rule, (1995)

If the takeover of Venezuela reads like old-fashioned empire building, the withdrawal from multilateral institutions is a disengagement from the very forums meant to prevent that kind of unilateralism.

In early 2026, the United States signed a presidential memorandum seeking to withdraw support and participation from 66 international organizations — including numerous United Nations agencies and treaty frameworks seen as “contrary to U.S. interests.” This list contains both U.N. bodies and other treaty mechanisms, extending a pattern of U.S. disengagement from global governance structures.

Among the organizations targeted are the U.N.’s population agency and the framework treaty for international climate negotiations. Already, U.S. participation in historic climate agreements like the Paris Agreement has been rolled back, and the World Health Organization was officially exited — marking a return to a transactional, bilateral focus rather than deep multilateral cooperation.

U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres responded to the announcement with regret and a reminder of legal obligations: assessed contributions to the regular and peacekeeping budgets are binding under the U.N. Charter for all member states, including the United States. He also underscored that despite U.S. withdrawal, the agencies will continue their work for the communities that depend on them.

This move comes against a backdrop in which the U.N. and other institutions are already grappling with serious internal challenges — problems that critics argue undermine their legitimacy and point to deeper governance failures. For instance, allegations of sexual exploitation and abuse by U.N. peacekeepers and staff have repeatedly surfaced, with hundreds of cases documented and concerns raised about the trustworthiness of leadership responses.

In 2024 alone, peacekeeping and political missions reported over 100 allegations, and internal surveys showed troubling attitudes among staff toward misconduct.

Such abuses are not random flukes; scholars and advocates have documented persistent organizational cultures where power imbalances enable exploitation and harassment, and where transparency and accountability often lag.

These structural issues do not delegitimize the idea of multilateral cooperation — but they certainly challenge claims that these institutions function as equitable and effective global governance mechanisms.

International non-governmental organizations (INGOs) are likewise under scrutiny. Critics point to cases where aid workers have perpetrated sexual abuse and exploitation or where organizational priorities have at times aligned more with donor interests than with local needs.

A 2024 study on sexual exploitation and harassment in humanitarian work highlights how power imbalances and weak enforcement mechanisms within the sector contribute to ongoing abuses that remain under-reported and inadequately addressed.

These issues — within the U.N. and the humanitarian sector — fuel frustration that multilateralism too often protects institutional reputation at the expense of victims and local communities. That frustration helps explain why some U.S. policymakers see these organizations as outdated or corrupt.

But the response of walking away rather than strengthening accountability mechanisms plays directly into the hands of those who would hollow out global governance altogether.

III. It Takes Two to Tango

So, is the United States the villain in this unfolding story of fractured cooperation and revived colonial impulses? Yes — but only partially.

There is no denying that recent U.S. foreign policy has made unilateral moves that harm global norms: military intervention in sovereign states, withdrawal from key treaties and organizations, and politicized rejection of multinational cooperation reflect a retreat from shared leadership. Yet, the belief that multilateral institutions are inherently effective, just and beyond reproach is equally misplaced.

Structural weaknesses in international governance — from slow, opaque accountability mechanisms to insufficient representation of Global South voices — have long been recognized by scholars and practitioners. These deficiencies leave global organizations vulnerable to political capture, ineffectiveness in crisis response and the perpetuation of inequalities they are meant to dismantle.

The failures inside the U.N. and the aid sector are not the sole fault of the United States, but of a global system that institutionalized power hierarchies sustained by western donors, from the beginning.

The New Colonialism era does not show up as 19th-century conquest; it’s woven into the language of “interest,” “security,” and “institutional reform.” Whether it is a powerful state flexing military might under humanitarian pretences or “self defence”, or powerful states walking away from agreements that protect smaller nations’ interests, the pattern is the same: power asserts itself where it can, and multilateral norms are treated as optional.

If this moment teaches us anything, it’s that saving multilateralism requires both accountability and renewal — not abandonment. Countries that champion global cooperation must address colonial legacies in governance, ensure institutions are transparent and accountable, and democratize decision-making.

Likewise, powerful states must recognize that withdrawing from shared systems or using them to further their own limited interests, does not reset power imbalances — it entrenches them.

In the end, meaningful global cooperation cannot be the project of a single nation or a network of powerful elites. It must be rooted in shared accountability and genuine equity — a coalition of efforts for the common good, prepared not only to compromise, but to sacrifice.

Azza Karam is President of Lead Integrity and Director of Occidental College’s Kahane UN Program.

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 Melek Zahine
BORDEAUX, France, Jan 12 2026 (IPS)

Before military aid is appropriated, troops deployed, or bombs dropped, the United States lays the groundwork for its political violence by first stripping adversaries of their humanity. Diplomacy is sidelined, legal restraints are treated as inconveniences, and profit is valued over human life. This machinery of dehumanization, imposed around the world for decades and honed in Gaza the past three years, has now returned home, turned inward against Americans by the elected officials and systems meant to protect them.

Melek Zahine

The human and financial costs of America’s addiction to war were a constant presence in my childhood. For my generation, war was relentlessly pursued by the political establishment, laundered through media narratives, and imposed on the working class and the poor in taxes and blood. I was not yet two when my family immigrated to the United States in April 1970, as the Vietnam War raged and Nixon ordered the invasion of Cambodia. By the time those wars ended, new interventions, proxy wars, coups, and “wars on terror” followed, with the language of dehumanization used to sell and sustain each conflict. Vietnamese civilians were reduced to “free-fire targets,” and indigenous farmers in Cold War Latin America were labeled “peasants and subversives” to justify massacres. After 9/11, Iraqis were written off as “collateral damage,” and during America’s longest war, Afghan “military-age males” were presumed “terrorists” and “guilty by default.” In every instance, dehumanization preceded and justified the violence.

The Laboratory for Dehumanization

And always, decade after decade, lingered U.S. patronage for Israel’s own wars, especially towards Palestinian self-determination. Israeli human rights abuses in the occupied Palestinian territories—excessive force, collective punishment, illegal settlement expansion, and arbitrary detention—have been documented in U.S. State Department reports since the 1970s. Yet Washington continued to expand military aid, making Israel the largest cumulative recipient of U.S. foreign assistance in history. After October 7, despite warnings from multiple U.S. government officials that Israel’s response to Hamas amounted to the collective punishment of Gaza’s 2.1 million population, nearly half of which is children, both the Biden and Trump administrations approved tens of billions of dollars in emergency arms transfers. These transfers proceeded despite evidence that U.S.-supplied arms, including chemical weapons and 2,000-pound bombs, were being used by Israel on Gaza’s densely populated civilian neighborhoods—violating both international law and domestic laws, namely the U.S. Arms Export Control Act and the Leahy Law. Over decades of support, but especially the past three years, U.S. support to Israel helped refine its own language of dehumanization towards Palestinians by consistently framing the killing of civilians as nameless and “unavoidable” incidents of Israel’s right to self-defense and laying the rhetorical foundation for the genocide in Gaza.

The Empire Comes Home

The militarized ICE raids now taking place across the United States rely on tactics, equipment, and doctrines supplied by the very military industrial complex that has profited from Gaza. The same officials who reduced Palestinians to “terrorists” or those shielding them now use that language at home, casting Americans protecting their communities as “threats to be neutralized” rather than citizens with inalienable rights. President Trump’s reluctance to say Renée Good’s name after a federal ICE agent fatally shot her in Minneapolis last week—framing the encounter as “self-defense”—echoes how Palestinians killed in Gaza by U.S.-supplied weapons and political cover are discussed as abstract, unnamed casualties. Naming the powerful while rendering the vulnerable nameless shields perpetrators and exposes the persistent logic of dehumanization that now bridges U.S. foreign policy and domestic policing.

Reclaiming Our Humanity

In his 1961 Farewell Address, Dwight D. Eisenhower warned that an unchecked military-industrial complex could distort democratic governance at home. Yet even as he spoke, he oversaw the very coups and interventions that entrenched permanent militarization. We are now living in the reality he feared. Washington’s ongoing complicity in Gaza, its increasingly aggressive posture toward Venezuela and Greenland, and its authoritarian behavior at home are a stark reminder: when dehumanization goes unchecked in U.S. foreign policy, it is only a matter of time before it goes unchecked domestically.

If Gaza and America’s long history of dehumanization have taught us anything, it’s that Americans cannot depend on their political elites to restrain their appetite for abusive authority. Average citizens must move beyond mere condemnation and toward sustained civic action. This means voting out officials beholden to war-profiteering lobbies, reasserting congressional power over the executive branch, and demanding the enforcement of laws designed to prevent U.S. complicity in human rights abuses overseas and the rule of law at home. The challenge ahead is truly immense—but ending the machinery of dehumanization is not inevitable and remains within the reach of those Americans determined to reclaim their shared humanity for one another and the world.

Melek Zahine is a writer and advocate focusing on the intersection of humanitarian assistance and U.S. foreign policy.

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');  

Despite early warnings reportedly reaching communities before the cyclones (Ditwah and Senyar) struck coastal regions in Sri Lanka and Southeast Asia late in November 2025, over 1,500 people lost their lives and hundreds went missing even as millions were impacted by these disasters, which caused massive destruction. Scientists say that these disasters reflect a changing […]

By Mario Osava
NITERÓI, Brazil, Jan 9 2026 (IPS)

“We moved from a context of socio-environmental exclusion to one of environmental justice,” said Dionê Castro, coordinator of the Sustainable Oceanic Region Program which led Brazil’s largest nature-based solutions project.

Having won national and global awards, the Orla Piratininga Park (POP) built 35,000 square meters of filtering gardens and improved the water quality of the Piratininga lagoon, in the oceanic south of Niterói, a municipality in metropolitan Rio de Janeiro, across the Guanabara Bay.

The project, named after the late Brazilian environmentalist Alfredo Sirkis, began in 2020, and aims to environmentally restore an area of 680,000 square meters on the lagoon’s shores whose waters cover an area of 2.87 square kilometers.

At the heart of the project are the treatment systems for the waters of the Cafubá, Arrozal, and Jacaré rivers, which flow into the lagoon. Sedimentation and pollution were deteriorating the water resource and the quality of life in the surrounding area.

A weir, which receives the river flow, a sedimentation pond, which removes solid waste, and the filtering gardens make up the chain that partially cleans the water before releasing it into the lagoon, reducing environmental impacts, in a process called phytoremediation.

The gardens are small reservoirs where aquatic plants called macrophytes are planted, which feed on the nutrients from the pollution, explained Heloisa Osanai, the biologist specialized in environmental management of the Sustainable Oceanic Region Program (PRO Sustainable).

Three polluted water treatment stations are in the neighborhoods crossed by the rivers, based on natural resources, “without the use of electrical energy, chemicals, or concrete,” explained Castro, the coordinator of PRO Sustainable.

Furthermore, some macrophytes produce abundant flowers. Only native Brazilian species are planted, with priority given to biodiversity, added Osanai.

Along with these water treatment systems, 10.8 kilometers of bike paths, 17 recreation centers, a 2,800-square-meter Eco-Cultural Center, and other environmental works with social goals were built.

The bike path, generally along a pedestrian sidewalk, caters to physical and leisure activities but is also a factor in protecting the lagoon shoreline by blocking urban occupation and real estate invasions, explain the officials.

The area where the water system was built at the mouth of the Cafubá river was highly degraded by an open-air dump and flooding. A reformed “belt channel,” in some sections also reinforced by macrophyte islands, corrected the waterlogging.

On the other side of the lagoon, 3.2 kilometers of bioswales improve the drainage of rainwater. They are trenches with pipes, stones, and other materials, plus vegetation, that accelerate drainage and prevent pollutants from reaching the lagoon.

The main result, according to Castro, reconciled the local population with the lagoon. The old houses that “turned their backs on the lagoon” are joined by new buildings facing the water, some with balconies overlooking the new landscape, said Mariah Bessa, the engineer in charge of hydraulic aspects of the project.

The local population was highly involved in the design and construction of the new environmental and social facilities that transformed the lagoon shoreline. This led to new attitudes, such as not littering on the ground or in the water and preventing others from doing so, according to Castro.

The Ecocultural Center promotes permanent environmental education, with films, children’s games, audiovisual resources, and a large space for visits and classes.

“We moved from a context of socio-environmental exclusion to one of environmental justice,” said the coordinator of PRO Sustainable.

Food solutions were on display everywhere around COP30—from the 80 tonnes of local and agroecological meals served to concrete proposals for tackling hunger—but none of this made it into the negotiating rooms or the final agreement. —Elisabetta Recine, IPES-Food panel expert

Credit: WMO/Daniel Pavlinovic / UN News

By Center for International Environmental Law
WASHINGTON, USA, Jan 9 2026 (IPS)

The Trump Administration’s sweeping executive order to withdraw the United States from dozens of United Nations bodies and international organizations, as well as a treaty ratified by the United States with the advice and consent of the US Senate, is a targeted assault on multilateralism, international law, and global institutions critical to safeguarding human rights, peace, and climate justice.

This move, the constitutionality and legal effect of which are questionable, was announced under the guise of protecting US interests, but does exactly the opposite. By divesting from global cooperation on the environment, human rights, democracy, and peace, the US puts its own future, and that of the planet, at greater risk.

The Executive Order represents a deliberate effort to dismantle the international infrastructure designed to uphold dignity, protect children, improve gender and racial equality, advance sustainable development, preserve the oceans, and confront the climate crisis. It undermines bodies that safeguard the global commons and ensure basic protections for marginalized people and those in vulnerable situations around the world, including refugees, women, children, people of African descent, and many others.

Rebecca Brown, President and CEO of the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) said:

“This executive order is not just a policy shift— it is a direct assault on the multilateral system that has helped prevent conflict, advance human rights, and protect the global commons for nearly eighty years. At a time when rising seas, record heat, and deadly disasters demand urgent, coordinated action, the US government is choosing to retreat.”

“The decision to defund and withdraw from the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) does not absolve the US of its legal obligations to prevent climate change and remedy climate harm, as the world’s highest court made clear last year. This action is simply a continuation of this Administration’s efforts to prioritize corporate interests over people and planet, and flout the rule of law.

Withdrawing from institutions designed to support global climate action does not change the stark reality of the climate crisis, rebut the irrefutable evidence of its causes, or eliminate the US’s clear responsibility for its consequences. Withdrawal only serves to further isolate the US to the detriment of its own population and billions around the world.”

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');  

Donald Trump, President of the United States of America, addresses the general debate of the General Assembly’s eightieth session in 2025. Credit: UN Photo/Evan Schneider.

By Oritro Karim
UNITED NATIONS, Jan 8 2026 (IPS)

President Donald Trump’s executive order to stop United States support for 66 international organizations, including 31 United Nations (UN) groups, has faced strong opposition from these organizations, the global community, humanitarian experts, and climate advocates, who are concerned about the negative effects on global cooperation, sustainable development, and international peace and security.

This executive order follows earlier withdrawals from the World Health Organization (WHO), the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC), and the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). The United States has recently reduced its funding for foreign aid organizations.

The majority of the affected bodies in this executive order are organizations that center around issues in climate change, labor, peacekeeping, migration, and civic space conditions. In a statement from the U.S. Department of State, it is confirmed that Trump’s review of these organizations found them to be “wasteful, ineffective, and harmful.”

The executive order primarily affects organizations that address climate change, labor rights, peacekeeping, migration, and civic space conditions. In a statement, the department described the organizations, calling them vehicles for “progressive ideologies” funded by American taxpayers and misaligned with United States’ national interests.

“The Trump Administration has found these institutions to be redundant in their scope, mismanaged, unnecessary, wasteful, poorly run, captured by the interests of actors advancing their agendas contrary to our own, or a threat to our nation’s sovereignty, freedoms, and general prosperity,” said United States Secretary of State Marco Rubio. “President Trump is clear: It is no longer acceptable to be sending these institutions the blood, sweat, and treasure of the American people, with little to nothing to show for it. The days of billions of dollars in taxpayer money flowing to foreign interests at the expense of our people are over.”

The order instructs all executive departments and agencies to begin implementing the withdrawals immediately. For the affected UN agencies, this entails ending United States participation and halting funding. Rubio also confirmed that the review of additional international organizations is still underway.

Humanitarian experts and spokespersons for many of the affected entities have voiced alarm and condemnation with President Trump’s order, warning of severe consequences for climate action, human rights, peacebuilding efforts, multilateral governance, and global crisis-response systems—particularly at a time of mounting international instability.

“Today, we are witnessing a complete shift from global cooperation towards transactional relations,” said Yamide Dagnet, Senior International Vice President at the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC).

“It is becoming less about shared principles, rule of law, and solidarity, thereby risking more global instability. By choosing to run away from addressing some of the biggest environmental, economic, health, and security threats on the planet, the United States of America stands to lose a lot. With diminishing credibility and competitiveness in the industries of the future, the United States will be missing out on job creation and innovation, ceding scientific and technological leadership to other countries,” Dagnet said.

She called on world leaders to commit to multilateralism.

“The world is bigger than the United States—and so are the solutions to our problems, which require global cooperation more than ever, including among states, provinces, and cities globally. This is the moment when world leaders need to resolutely commit to multilateral collaboration if we’re going to overcome these global threats to ensure a safe and sustainable future for all.”

Many have also criticized the United States’ à la carte approach to meeting its international obligations, only supporting the operations and agencies that align with President Trump’s priorities.

“I think what we’re seeing is the crystallization of the United States approach to multilateralism, which is ‘my way or the highway,’” said Daniel Forti, the head of UN affairs at the International Crisis Group. “It’s a very clear vision of wanting international cooperation on Washington’s own terms.”

The Intergovernmental Science Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) said it regretted “the deeply disappointing news of the United States’ intention to withdraw its participation in IPBES, along with more than 60 other international organizations and bodies.”

Dr. David Obura, Chair of the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), said the U.S. was a founding member and “scientists, policymakers and stakeholders—including Indigenous Peoples and local communities—from the United States have been among the most engaged contributors to the work of IPBES since its establishment in 2012, making valuable contributions to objective science-based assessments of the state of the planet for people and nature.”

Apart from their contributions to IPBES, “decision-makers in the United States—at all levels and in all spheres of society—have also been among the most prolific users of the work produced by IPBES to help better inform policy, regulations, investments and future research.”

Obura thanked the United States for their contribution but noted that the withdrawal would have a massive impact on IPBES and the planet.

“Unfortunately, we cannot withdraw from the fact that more than 1 million species of plants and animals face extinction. Nor can we change the fact that the global economy is losing as much as USD 25 trillion per year in environmental impacts, or restore the missed opportunities of not acting now to generate more than USD 10 trillion in business opportunity value and 395 million jobs by 2030.”

Historically, the United States has been the largest financial contributor to the UN, providing approximately 22 percent of the organization’s regular budget and roughly 28 percent of all peacekeeping funds.

The withdrawal of United States support from 31 UN bodies is expected to trigger substantial budget shortfalls, cutbacks in humanitarian staffing, and the loss of critical technical expertise supplied by its personnel. These setbacks are likely to hinder progress toward the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), reduce food assistance and medical services for people in protracted crises, and embolden authoritarian governments to resist humanitarian oversight and intervention.

“The US decision to disengage from dozens of United Nations programs and agencies, along with other international bodies, is just President Trump’s latest assault on human rights protections and the global rule of law,” said Louis Charbonneau, UN director at Human Rights Watch (HRW).

“Whether withdrawing from the Human Rights Council or defunding the UN Population Fund, which helps millions of women and girls around the world, this administration has been trying to destroy the very same human rights institutions that the US helped build over the last 80 years. UN member countries should resist the US campaign to demolish tools they use to uphold human rights and ensure that vital UN programs have the funding and political support they need.”

At a press briefing at the UN Headquarters, Stéphane Dujarric, spokesperson for the UN Secretary-General António Guterres, informed reporters of the UN’s reaction to the United States withdrawal, emphasizing that the UN remains committed to assisting people in need regardless of United States participation

“As we have consistently underscored, assessed contributions to the United Nations regular budget and peacekeeping budget, as approved by the General Assembly, are a legal obligation under the UN Charter for all Member States, including the United States,” said Dujarric.

“All United Nations entities will go on with the implementation of their mandates as given by Member States. The United Nations has a responsibility to deliver for those who depend on us.  We will continue to carry out our mandates with determination.”

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 Anis Chowdhury
DHAKA, Bangladesh, Jan 8 2026 (IPS)

As many of you know, out of the blue, I have been called in to assist the Interim Government led by Nobel Laureate Professor Muhammad Yunus in stabilising the economy left in ruins by the fallen autocratic-kleptocratic regime that looted the banks, stole public money and robbed small investors in the capital market to siphon off billions of dollars out of the country. I had never served in a government; neither had I ever expected this opportunity. However, my UN experience and political economy understanding have been handy.

Anis Chowdhury

Reflecting back the year that we have just passed, I trust, you have been well as we wished each other at the start of 2025 the best of our health and spirit. Unfortunately, despite our earnest wish, the world was not peaceful during 2025.

Hopes and global disorder

Hopes kindled briefly for justice for the Palestinians as the European powers, including Australia (a European settler colony) were forced to recognise the Palestine State, and Narcissist Trump pushed for some peace in both Ukraine and Gaza in his mad desperation for a Nobel Peace Prize.

Yet Gaza is still being bombarded with Israel’s genocidal intent, making a mockery of deranged Trump’s rhetorical claim of achieving “peace in the Middle East for the first time in 3,000 years”, and the illegal occupation of the West Bank along with settler violence continues unabated with complete immunity in blatant violations of international laws.

Narcissist Trump sanctioned the International Criminal Court (ICC) and International Court of Justice (ICJ) in his desperate attempt to save Israeli war criminals, including Benjamin Netanyahu and justify Israel’s genocide and settler violence. Trump upended his assault on the rule-based order with arbitrary so-called ‘reciprocal tariff’.

Bangladesh

As for the post-fascist Hasina Bangladesh, the year 2025 began with high expectations. And as for me, the year 2025 has been extra-ordinary.

Today, I am pleased to say that we have been able to avert a full-blown crisis. Heart-felt thanks to our ‘remittance fighters’ who whole-heartedly trusted the Interim Government’s various reform initiatives. Expatriate Bangladeshis sent a record $30.04 bn in remittances in the 2024–25 fiscal year, the highest amount ever received in a single fiscal year in the country’s history. Forex reserves surged to $33 bn, hitting 3-year high as December remittances crossed $3bn. You can get a report card by Finance Advisor, Dr. Salehuddin and myself, published in the Daily Star on 18 August 2025.

Of course, not everything has been rosy. The much-hoped systemic transition remains full of uncertainty. I see systemic transition as the process of total transformation of a caterpillar inside a cocoon. We still do not know whether the ‘caterpillar in the cocoon’ will turn out to be a butterfly or a moth. People are genuinely worried as the past systemic transition opportunities were wasted.

I myself found road-blocks at every turn. Bureaucratic inertia and resistance have frustrated my efforts for genuine reforms. It has been a real-life experience of the classic British political satire, “Yes, Minister”. Like Sir Humphrey Appleby, the bureaucrats will display outwardly extra-ordinary humbleness, but will politely defy citing rules of business. Bureaucratic resistance is the main stumbling block for achieving coordination, coherence and integration in policy making and implementation, thus, causing wasteful duplications, inefficiency and lack of effectiveness.

Nevertheless, I achieved some success. One of them is the agreement to expand the voluntary Bangladesh National Cadet Corps programme to cover ALL youths (aged 18) in 10-12 years, so that we can have a disciplined workforce to be readily deployed during any national emergency. Needless to say, that this is an imperative to realise demographic dividend. We are hoping to roll out the programme from July 2026 to coincide with the July Revolution anniversary.

Despite frustrations and uncertainties, I am hopeful as I can see a seismic shift in the political dynamics of the country. This coincides with the demographic shift – the youth (15-30 years) representing nearly 30% of the population. These youths have a different vocabulary of politics; they want justice, inclusion, self-respect, and dignity – they are fiercely nationalist.

Recently martyred Hadi is their embodiment. The establishment is understandably threatened and tried to silence the youth by assassinating Hadi; but they failed to extinguish the flame, instead, everyone has become a Hadi, standing unwavering in their commitment to carry out Hadi’s mission of building a just nation where citizens can live with dignity, free from fear, subjugation, and oppression. Hadi re-centred our national conscience on Insaf: justice, dignity, and fairness not as rhetorical slogans, but as non-negotiable ethical foundations of the State and society.

In an era of moral drift, Hadi reminded the nation that no political order can last without justice at its core. He ignited a generation with civic courage and moral responsibility. Free from fear, patronage, or transactional politics, young people saw in Hadi a new model of leadership: ethical, principled, and accountable. In doing so, he reshaped the future political character of Bangladesh and moved national thinking beyond entrenched legacy power structures toward people-centric, principled governance. He challenged the inevitability of corruption and coercion, insisting instead that politics could be reclaimed as a moral vocation. His life poses an enduring question to those who seek power: Will you serve justice, or merely rule?

Let me end this year-end message with my personal tribute to Khaleda Zia, who has recently passed away after a long illness imposed on her by the vindictive Hasina regime, falsely convicting her and imprisoning in a substandard cell. Like her husband, Shaheed President Zia, she was thrust into the whirlpool of history. They never sought power; but when the responsibility fell on their shoulders, they carried out their duties to the nation whole-heartedly and selflessly; thus, they became a true statesman (woman), winning hearts and minds of their people.

Perhaps Khaleda Zia’s most enduring legacy lies in her extraordinary restraint and dignified disposition, even under severe and prolonged adversity. Her self-restraint, rooted in grace rather than weakness, distinguished her from many of her contemporaries and offers a powerful lesson for today’s often abrasive and confrontational political culture.

Warmest regards and best wishes for the New Year

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');  

Two malnourished children receive food supplements at a health centre in Tawila, North Darfur, Sudan. Credit: UNICEF/Mohammed Jamal

By Oritro Karim
UNITED NATIONS, Jan 8 2026 (IPS)

As Sudan approaches 1,000 days of civil war, late December and early January saw a brutal escalation of violence, with drone strikes hitting areas at the center of the country’s deepening hunger crisis.

While the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) advance across western and southern Sudan, and the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) tighten control over the east and the capital, civilians are at a high risk of being caught in the crossfire. Thousands have been displaced as a direct result of violence, humanitarian access remains severely strained, and most civilians are unable to access basic, essential services.

In late December, the International Rescue Committee (IRC) released its annual Emergency Watchlist report, outlining the humanitarian crises in 20 countries and identifying those at the greatest risk of deteriorating conditions in 2026. For the third year in a row, Sudan ranked at the top of the list, with the IRC describing the nation’s crisis as the “largest humanitarian crisis ever recorded”, as well as the largest and fastest growing displacement crisis in the world.

“This crisis is entirely man-made,” said IRC country director for Sudan, Eatizaz Yousif. “The ongoing conflict has decimated livelihoods, displaced millions, and blocked life-saving aid from reaching those in desperate need.” According to IRC estimates, roughly 150,000 Sudanese civilians were killed in 2025—a number expected to rise in the new year as the conflict intensifies and collapsing emergency services struggle to meet rapidly growing needs.

The first week of 2026 have been particularly turbulent for besieged civilians in Sudan. Between January 1 and 3, multiple drone strikes occurred in Dilling, South Kordofan, causing numerous civilian deaths and injuries and generating considerable panic among residents.

On January 3, drone strikes targeted a market and a medical clinic in the Al Zurg and Ghurair villages in North Darfur, which has been described as the “epicenter of Sudan’s hunger crisis” by the United Nations (UN), causing extensive damage. The same day, two drone attacks occurred in the Kulbus locality in West Darfur, leading to the displacement of over 600 civilians.

According to figures from the International Organization for Migration (IOM), between December 31 and January 4, over 1,000 civilians were driven from their homes and fled to South Kordofan as a result of violence. On January 6, brutal clashes between warring parties caused over 2,000 civilians to flee from North Kordofan in a single day.

Conditions for displaced civilians in North Darfur are extremely dire, with the IRC underscoring a widespread lack of access to basic services. Approximately 400,000 families fleeing violence in neighboring El Fasher have arrived in Tawila, overwhelming the region’s already strained humanitarian capacity. Many are living in makeshift shelters without adequate food, clean water, or healthcare. IRC teams have also reported more than 170 young children in Tawila separated from their families, highlighting the severe protection risks facing displaced communities.

“The sight of these small children arriving alone, without the whereabouts or the fate of the rest of their family, is harrowing,” said Arjan Hehenkamp, IRC’s Darfur crisis lead. “Extremely disturbing reports and satellite imagery confirm that people are not able to flee El Fasher to safe places like Tawila, which means they are trapped, detained, or worse.”

On December 29, the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) conducted a nutritional assessment in North Darfur’s Um Baru locality—one of the regions most affected by conflict and food insecurity—and found that 53 percent of nearly 500 children screened showed signs of acute malnutrition, many of them being under five years old. Eighteen percent of the screened children were found to suffer from severe acute malnutrition, which can be fatal in weeks if left untreated.

“When severe acute malnutrition reaches this level, time becomes the most critical factor,” said UNICEF Executive Director Catherine Russell. “Children in Um Baru are fighting for their lives and need immediate help. Every day without safe and unhindered access increases the risk of children growing weaker and more death and suffering from causes that are entirely preventable.”

According to estimates from the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC), roughly 21.2 million people across Sudan—nearly half of the population—are experiencing high levels of food insecurity, with over 3.7 million children under five, as well as pregnant and lactating women, urgently requiring treatment for acute malnutrition. Furthermore, famine was officially declared in El Fasher and Kadugli in November, with humanitarian experts projecting that it could spread to 20 additional localities across Darfur and Kordofan.

In late December, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) announced a large-scale seed distribution campaign to assist in winterization efforts and combat Sudan’s deepening nutrition and hunger crisis for the new year. Launched in Khartoum in November, the campaign aims to strengthen and rehabilitate Sudan’s local food production. FAO seeks to reach over 134,000 households, or 670,000 people, across ten states, including Al Jazirah, Blue Nile, Gedaref, Kassala, Khartoum, Northern State, Red Sea, River Nile, Sennar, and the White Nile states.

Targeted households will receive a variety of vegetable seeds including eggplant, green pepper, jute mallow, okra, onion, pumpkin, rocket, snake cucumber, tomato, and zucchini. This campaign aims to restore dietary diversity, improve household nutrition, and revitalize livelihood opportunities. This is crucial for a country like Sudan, in which roughly 80 percent of the population relies on agriculture as a lifeline for food and income.

Additionally, the UN and its partners are working on the ground in Khartoum to strengthen protection services for vulnerable civilians. The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) is currently in the process of removing debris, distributing medications, creating short-term employment opportunities, and providing psychosocial support.

In late December, UNDP and the UN Secretary General’s Peacebuilding Fund (PBF) launched a campaign titled Strengthening Capacities for Peace and Social Cohesion in Kassala and Red Sea States, in cooperation with UNICEF, to promote gender equality, social cohesion, youth engagement, equitable governance, and successful livelihoods.

“During the war, many of us felt hopeless, but being part of this group gave me purpose,” said Khawla, a youth ambassador from Kadugli trained by the program. “When I see young people listening, asking questions, and starting to believe that peace is possible, I know our work matters. It’s not just about awareness—it’s about restoring trust and rebuilding our communities from the ground up.”

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');  

President John Dramani Mahama of Ghana addressing the UN General Assembly last September. Credit: UN Photo

By Kester Kenn Klomegah
MOSCOW, Jan 8 2026 (IPS)

Squeezed between import substitution and dependency syndrome, a condition characterized by a set of associated economic symptoms—that is rules and regulations—majority of African countries are shifting from United States and Europe to an incoherent alternative bilateral partnerships with Russia, China and the Global South.

By forging new partnerships, for instance with Russia, these African countries rather create conspicuous economic dependency at the expense of strengthening their own local production, attainable by supporting local farmers under state budget. Import-centric partnership ties and lack of diversification make these African countries committed to import-dependent structures. It invariably compounds domestic production challenges. Needless to say that Africa has huge arable land and human resources to ensure food security.

A classical example that readily comes to mind is Ghana, and other West African countries. With rapidly accelerating economic policy, Ghana’s President John Dramani Mahama ordered the suspension of U.S. chicken and agricultural products, reaffirming swift measures for transforming local agriculture considered as grounds for ensuring sustainable food security and economic growth and, simultaneously, for driving job creation.

President Mahama, in early December 2025, while observing Agricultural Day, urged Ghanaians to take up farming, highlighting the guarantee and state support needed for affordable credit and modern tools to boost food security. According to Mahama, Ghana spends $3bn yearly on basic food imports from abroad.

The government decision highlights the importance of leveraging unto local agriculture technology and innovation. Creating opportunities to unlock the full potential of depending on available resources within the new transformative policy strategy which aims at boosting local productivity. President Mahama’s special initiatives are the 24-Hour Economy and the Big Push Agenda. One of the pillars focuses on Grow 24 – modernising agriculture.

Despite remarkable commendations for new set of economic recovery, Ghana’s demand for agricultural products is still high, and this time making a smooth shift to Russia whose poultry meat and wheat currently became the main driver of exports to African countries. And Ghana, noticeably, accepts large quantity (tonnes) of poultry from Russia’s Rostov region into the country, according to several media reports. The supplies include grains, but also vegetable oils, meat and dairy products, fish and finished food products have significant potential for Africa.

The Agriculture Ministry’s Agroexport Department acknowledges Russia exports chicken to Ghana, with Ghanaian importers sourcing Russian poultry products, especially frozen cuts, to meet significant local demand that far outstrips domestic production, even after Ghana lifted a temporary 2020 avian flu-related ban on Russian poultry.

Moreover, monitoring and basic research indicated Russian producers are actively increasing poultry exports to various African countries, thus boosting trade, although Ghana still struggles to balance imports with local industry needs.

A few details indicate the following:

* Trade Resumed: Ghana has lifted its ban on Russian poultry imports since April 2021, allowing poultry trade to resume. Russian regions hve, thus far, consistently exported these poultry meat and products into the country under regulatory but flexible import rules on a negotiated bilateral agreement.

* Significant Market: In any case, Ghana is a key African market for Russian poultry, with exports seeing substantial growth in recent years, alongside Angola, Benin, Cote d’Voire, Nigeria and Sierra Leone.

* Demand-Driven: Ghana’s large gap between domestic poultry production and national demand necessitates significant imports, creating opportunities for foreign suppliers like Russia.

* Major Exporters: Russia poultry companies are focused on increasing generally their African exports, with Ghana being a major destination. The basic question: to remain as import dependency or strive at attaining food sufficiency?

* Product Focus: Exports typically include frozen chicken cuts (legs and meat) very vital for supplementing local supply. But as the geopolitical dynamics shift, Ghana and other importing African countries have to review partnerships, particularly with Russia.

Despite the fact that challenges persist, Russia strongly remains as a notable supplier to Ghana, even under the supervision of John Mahama’s administration, dealing as a friendly ally, both have the vision for multipolar trade architecture, ultimately fulfilling a critical role in meeting majority of African countries’ large consumer demand for poultry products, and with Russia’s trade actively expanding and Ghana’s preparedness to spend on such imports from the state budget.

Following two high-profile Russia–Africa summits, cooperation in the area of food security emerged as a key theme. Moscow pledged to boost agricultural exports to the continent—especially grain, poultry, and fertilisers—while African leaders welcomed the prospect of improved food supplies.

Nevertheless, do these African governments think of prioritising agricultural self-sufficiency. At a May 2025 meeting in St. Petersburg, Russia’s Economic Development Minister, Maxim Reshetnikov, underlined the fact that more than 40 Russian companies were keen to export animal products and agricultural goods to the African region.

Russia, eager to expand its economic footprint, sees large-scale agricultural exports as a key revenue generator. Estimates suggest the Russian government could earn over $15 billion annually from these agricultural exports to African continent.

Head of the Agroexport Federal Center, Ilya Ilyushin, speaking at the round table “Russia-Africa: A Strategic Partnership in Agriculture to Ensure Food Security,” which was held as part of the international conference on ensuring the food sovereignty of African countries in Addis Ababa (Ethiopia) on Nov. 21, 2025, said: “We see significant potential in expanding supplies of Russian agricultural products to Africa.”

It mentioned that the Agriculture Ministry’s Agroexport Department, and the Union of Grain Exporters and Producers, exported over 32,000 tonnes of wheat and barley to Egypt totaling nearly $8 million during the first half of 2025, Kenya totaling over $119 million.

Interfax media reports referred to African countries whose markets are of interest for Russian producers and exporters. Despite existing difficulties, supplies of livestock products are also growing, this includes poultry meat, Ilyushin said. Exports of agricultural products from Russia to African countries have more than doubled, and third quarter of 2025 reached almost $7 billion.

The key buyers of Russian grain on the continent are Egypt, Algeria, Kenya, Libya, Tunisia, Nigeria, Morocco, South Africa, Tanzania and Sudan, he said. According to him, Russia needs to expand the geography of supplies, increasing exports to other regions of the continent, increase supplies in West Africa to Benin, Cameroon, Ghana, Liberia and the French-speaking Sahelian States.

Of course, Russian exporters have nothing to complain. Africa’s dependency dilemma still persists. Therefore, Russia to continue expanding food exports to Africa explicitly reflects a calculated economic and geopolitical strategy. In the end of the analysis, the debate plays out prominently and also the primary message: Africa cannot afford to sacrifice food sovereignty for geopolitical solidarity.

With the above analysis, Russian exporters show readiness to explore and shape actionable strategies for harnessing Africa’s consumer market, including that of Ghana, and further to strengthen economic and trade cooperation and support its dynamic vision for sustainable development in the context of multipolar friendship and solidarity.

Kester Kenn Klomegah focuses on current geopolitical changes, foreign relations and economic development-related questions in Africa with external countries. Most of his well-resourced articles are reprinted in several reputable foreign media.

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');  

Activists at a My body, My choice protest. Credit: Voicepk.net

By Zofeen Ebrahim
KARACHI, Pakistan, Jan 8 2026 (IPS)

As 2026 dawns, women in Pakistan are left grappling with a stark reality: rape and marital rape continue to be misinterpreted by judges in the country’s highest courts.

Earlier this month, Pakistan’s Supreme Court set aside a rape conviction, changing it to fornication (consensual sex out of marriage) – reducing a 20-year sentence to five years and slashing the fine from 500,000 rupees to 10,000 rupees, sparking fresh calls for better protections for Pakistani women.

“Such judgments do not give confidence to women to come out and report sexual violence perpetrated on them,” said Ayesha Farooq, chairperson of the government-notified Committee of the Anti-Rape Investigation and Trial Act, formed in 2021.

Despite protective legislation, 70 percent of gender-based violence incidents go unreported. Of those reported, the national conviction rate stands at just 5 percent, with some categories as low as 0.5 percent and domestic violence convictions at 1.3 percent.

Senator Sherry Rehman highlighted the stark figures: in 2024, Islamabad had seven convictions out of 176 rape cases, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa one out of 258, Sindh none from 243 rape cases and Balochistan reported 21 rapes with no convictions.

Nida Aly, Executive Director of AGHS, said, “I have never felt so disappointed in our judiciary. Judges have failed as a gender-competent forum and lost credibility.”

The Supreme Court case involved a survivor who, in 2015, was raped at gunpoint while relieving herself in the woods. She reported the incident seven months later; DNA tests confirmed the accused as the father of her child. The trial court convicted him, and the Lahore High Court upheld the verdict. Yet at the Supreme Court, two of three judges reclassified the act as fornication, citing the complainant’s silence, lack of resistance, and absence of physical marks. Section 496-B of the Penal Code prescribes five years’ imprisonment and a Rs10,000 fine for fornication.

This reasoning drew sharp criticism from the National Commission on the Status of Women, which said consent cannot be inferred from silence, delayed reporting, or lack of resistance, and urged courts to recognise the realities of trauma, fear, coercion, and power imbalances in sexual violence cases.

Ironically, after the recasting of the case, the woman was exempted from punishment.

She was reminded of another case of rape in 2024, where a woman accused her brother’s friend of rape.

“The same judge converted the conviction of rape into fornication – along with arguments like “the woman showed no resistance; there were no marks of violence” and there was a two-day delay in reporting to the police.

Justice Ayesha Malik’s dissenting note arguing there was no “standardised” rulebook response by the victim emphasised consent.

Jamshed M. Kazi, Country Representative, UN Women Pakistan, said such cases resonate far beyond the courtroom. “The language used and the conclusions reached shape not only legal precedent but also social attitudes, survivor confidence, and public trust in justice.”

He added, “For survivors of sexual violence, judgements can leave lasting marks on the lives of women and girls, affecting how their experiences are believed and remembered, and may discourage reporting, reinforcing silence, fear, or self-doubt among survivors.”

Another case saw the Lahore High Court dismiss rape complaints against a husband because he was still legally married, even though he raped the woman at gunpoint. The judge, while maintaining the conduct of the man to be “immoral” and “inappropriate under religious or social norms”, said it was not a crime since the marriage continued to exist legally at the time of the incident.

“The judge focused on the validity of the marriage and completely disregarded the woman’s claim of non-consent and being subjected to forced sex at gunpoint,” pointed out Aly.

While there is no explicit provision criminalising marital rape, the Protection of Women (Criminal Law Amendment) Act, 2006 removed marriage as a defence to rape. When the definition of rape was substantially revised under the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2021, no marital exemption was reintroduced.

Between 1979 and 2006, Maliha Zia, Director, Gender, Inclusion & Development at the Karachi-based Legal Aid Society, explained, marriage operated as a defence to rape because the law defined rape as sexual intercourse by a man with a woman “who is not his wife” under specified circumstances. The deliberate removal of the words “not his wife” in 2006 therefore eliminated marriage as a defence, a position that has remained unchanged since.

“The 2006 Protection of Women Act was an important step; it corrected major injustices by separating rape from zina (unlawful sexual intercourse – including adultery and fornication),” said Dr Sharmila Faruqui, a member of the National Assembly.  “But it stopped short of clearly saying that lack of consent within marriage is also rape and that silence has allowed old assumptions to survive.”

Faruqui stressed the need for judicial sensitisation, particularly at senior levels, but noted that judges are ultimately bound by the law. “When the law is unclear, even well-intentioned interpretations can go wrong,” she said. She called for legislative clarity—through a penal code amendment or another carefully considered route—emphasising that consent, grounded in dignity and equality, must remain central regardless of marital status. “Marriage was never meant to be a license for violence.”

This was endorsed by Zia, who has been among the trainers of judges who hear GBV cases. “Much work needs to be done to constantly sensitise the justice sector on women’s experiences and the trauma they go through due to sexual violence. “Many work on the assumption that the woman is most likely lying, especially if she didn’t fight or run or report straight away,” she added.

To its credit, Pakistan, under the anti-rape act of 2021 special courts were notified to look into gender-based violence cases. To date there are 174 such courts. Unfortunately, these courts are not exclusively handling GBV cases, said Zia. But even with this limitation, rape case convictions in Sindh rose to 17 percent in 2025, from 5 percent in 2020, when such courts did not exist. “Imagine how much better it could be!” According to her, in districts where there is a high caseload of GBV, courts should be exclusive, not necessarily more.

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');  

Despite impressive global declines in mortality rates, life expectancies at birth vary significantly among countries. Credit: Shutterstock

By Joseph Chamie
PORTLAND, USA, Jan 7 2026 (IPS)

While death is inevitable for everyone, the timing of “The Appointment in Samarra” varies significantly among and within populations. Fortunately, mortality levels of human populations have declined significantly worldwide in recent years, leading to increased survival rates and delayed appointments in Samarra.

For example, in the mid-20th century, life expectancies at birth for males and females were 45 and 48 years, respectively. Today, males and females have life expectancies at birth of 71 and 76 years, respectively, which is an increase of more than 25 years. Additionally, females generally have higher life expectancies than males across countries (Figure 1).

 

Source: United Nations.

 

Despite impressive global declines in mortality rates, life expectancies at birth vary significantly among countries. Currently, life expectancies at birth for males and females range from highs of about 82 and 87 years, respectively, in Japan and Italy, to lows of approximately 55 and 57 years, respectively, in Nigeria and the Central African Republic.

Inequities in life expectancies at birth persist across different age groups. For example, by the age of 65, country differences in life expectancy remain substantial. In Japan and Italy, life expectancies for males and females at age 65 are approximately 20 and 24 years, respectively. In contrast, the life expectancies for males and females at age 65 in Nigeria and the Central African Republic are about 12 and 13 years, respectively.

Similarly, infant mortality rates vary greatly among countries around the world. The mortality rates of infants range from lows of approximately 2 deaths per 1,000 births in Japan and Italy to highs over 30 times greater, with about 68 deaths per 1,000 births in Nigeria and the Central African Republic.

Longer life expectancies for the world’s population have also led to an increase in the number of centenarians.

In 1950, there were nearly 15,000 centenarians worldwide, making up 0.001% of the global population. Today, there are approximately 630,000 centenarians, accounting for close to 0.01% of the world’s population. By 2050, the number of centenarians is projected to reach 2.6 million, representing around 0.03% of the world’s population (Figure 2).

 

Source: United Nations.

 

There are many important factors that influence when and how the appointment in Samarra will occur. These factors include place of birth, residence, sex, socio-economic status, housing, healthcare, nutrition, diet, education, friends, exercise, genetics, disease prevalence, economic stability, public health, injuries, mental health, environmental conditions, political stability, human rights, social support, sanitation, substance use, lifestyle choices, parenting, personal habits, poverty, and violence (Table 1).

 

 

Declines in fertility rates have followed mortality rate declines, commonly described as the demographic transition. The fertility rate of the world’s population has fallen from a high of about 5.3 births per woman in the early 1960s to 2.2 births per woman today.

More than half of all countries and areas worldwide have a fertility rate below the replacement level of 2.1 births per woman. In many of these countries, deaths outnumber births, resulting in negative rates of population growth.

For example, in China, deaths began outnumbering births about five years ago. This trend is expected to continue for the rest of the 21st century, leading to population decline and the demographic ageing of the Chinese population.

The timing and circumstances of appointments in Samarra differ among the populations of more developed and less developed countries. People in the latter group are more likely to die from communicable diseases than from noncommunicable diseases, which are chronic conditions typically associated with older, aging populations and lifestyle factors.

Among more developed countries, major causes of death include heart disease, cancer, stroke, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and lower respiratory infections. Other leading causes are Alzheimer’s and other dementia, tuberculosis, diarrheal diseases, HIV/AIDS, and external causes and injuries.

Currently, life expectancies at birth for males and females range from highs of about 82 and 87 years, respectively, in Japan and Italy, to lows of approximately 55 and 57 years, respectively, in Nigeria and the Central African Republic

Additionally, in many countries, cancer has replaced heart disease as the leading cause of death. The most common cancers are breast, lung, colon, rectum, and prostate cancer.

Approximately a third of cancer deaths are due to tobacco use, high body mass index, alcohol consumption, low fruit and vegetable intake, and lack of physical activity. Air pollution is also an important risk factor for lung cancer. Many cancers can be cured if detected early and treated effectively.

In many less developed countries, major causes of death include lower respiratory diseases, stroke, heart disease, malaria, and pre-term birth conditions. Other important causes include diarrheal diseases, tuberculosis, birth trauma, and HIV/AIDS.

Another major cause of death in recent years has been the coronavirus or COVID-19. The World Health Organization declared it a global pandemic on 11 March 2020, and it ended in May 2023, but remains an ongoing health threat. The pandemic resulted in over 7 million officially reported deaths worldwide, but the estimated excess morality is significantly higher, ranging between 18 and 35 million.

A crucial factor influencing the timing of appointments in Samarra is the availability of universal health coverage. According to the World Health Organization, universal health coverage ensures that every individual in a country has access to a wide range of health services, from emergency treatments to palliative care, without facing financial difficulties.

As of 2024, 73 out of the 195 countries worldwide were reported to offer some form of universal health coverage, which covers around two-thirds of the global population of 8.2 billion.

Among more developed nations, the United States stands out as a notable exception for not providing universal health care to all its citizens. In 2024, private health insurance coverage remained more prevalent than public coverage, with 66% of the U.S. population being covered. Additionally, the U.S. was noted for having the highest healthcare spending figure per capita in the world.

A significant debate surrounding the appointments in Samarra revolves around the right to die or medically assisted suicide. The differing perspectives about assisted suicide focus on the balance between individual autonomy and the sanctity of life.

Some believe that individuals experiencing unbearable suffering, often due to a terminal illness or incurable condition, should have the legal right and control to decide on medically assisted suicide or voluntary euthanasia. In contrast, others argue that assisted suicide devalues human life and opens the door to potential abuse. They also emphasize the importance of palliative care for those facing illness or personal struggles.

Medically assisted suicide is legal under specific circumstances in a limited number of countries. Those places include Australia, Austria. Belgium, Canada, Colombia, Ecuador, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Spain, Switzerland, and twelve states in the United States.

In order to be eligible for medical assistance in dying, an individual typically must meet certain criteria. These criteria may include having a terminal illness or disability, being of sound mind, expressing a voluntary desire to die, and being capable of self-administering the lethal dose.

While the appointment in Samarra is inevitable for every human being, the timing of when this appointment will occur remains a topic of debate among the scientific community.

Some believe that there is a fixed limit to human life span, largely attributed to the gradual processes of biological ageing. They stress the implausibility of radical life extension for humans in the 21st century.

On the other hand, some argue that there is no conclusive evidence that the limit of human life span has been reached. The oldest supercentenarian on record, Jeanne Calment of France, lived to be 122 years and 164 days. Some experts predict that this current record of 122 years will be surpassed by the end of the 21st century, possibly even reaching 130 years.

In conclusion, the mortality rates of human populations have decreased globally in recent years, leading to improved chances of survival, longer life expectancies, and a growing number of centenarians. However, the timing and circumstances of the inevitable appointment in Samarra vary, with populations in more developed countries continuing to experience lower death rates and longer life expectancies compared to populations in less developed countries.

Joseph Chamie is a consulting demographer, a former director of the United Nations Population Division, and author of many publications on population matters.

Girl at computer. Credit: UNFPA Central African Republic/Karel Prinsloo
 
A bold action by governments, tech companies, and all communities is needed to confront the rising tech-facilitated GBV that is silencing women’s voices and threatening hard-won gains in Africa.

By Sennen Hounton and Lydia Zigomo
UNITED NATIONS, Jan 7 2026 (IPS)

New estimates show that violence against women and girls remains one of the most pervasive human rights violations in the world – and that one of its fastest-growing frontiers is the digital space.

Technology-facilitated gender-based violence includes online harassment, cyberstalking, image-based abuse, deepfake exploitation and coordinated digital attacks, and all of these are proliferating.

Anonymous accounts, weak reporting systems, and limited legal consequences have enabled perpetrators to weaponize technology to shame, silence, and violate women and girls at unprecedented scale and speed.

Africa is no exception.

Across the continent, disturbing patterns are emerging: Girls are facing cyberbullying and sextortion. Women leaders and human rights defenders are disproportionately targeted through coordinated online abuse designed to intimidate them out of public life.

During elections, women in public roles report harassment, smear campaigns and doxxing – tactics meant to silence civic participation.

In humanitarian settings – from the Sahel to the Lake Chad Basin to Sudan and the Democratic Republic of the Congo – displaced women and girls rely on digital tools to stay connected and access essential services.

Yet these same tools expose them to surveillance, extortion, blackmail and exploitation.

In conflict contexts, online threats have escalated into offline consequences – including intimidation, detention and physical violence.

Despite the scale of the problem, most cases remain invisible because technology companies, justice systems and communities have not kept pace. Reporting mechanisms are often ineffective.

Digital safety is rarely taught in schools or homes. Survivors face retaliation and victim-blaming. Perpetrators, and the platforms that enable them, are almost never held accountable.

The consequences are severe. Technology-facilitated violence impacts mental health, restricts mobility, destroys livelihoods and erodes confidence. “This virtual world can have real emotional impacts. It’s not enough to say ignore it or log off,” a 24-year-old woman in Chad told UNFPA.

Other young women in Africa also describe witnessing or experiencing harms with real-world impacts: “My page was hacked, I was forced to do things against my will,” a 31-year-old woman from Liberia said.

“Someone had published naked photos and videos of me in our local village Facebook group,” a young woman in Kenya shared. “I gathered the courage and went to a police station to report the incident. The officers I spoke to first admonished me and told me that this was not a criminal case, but rather a case of indecent behaviour on my part.”

In aggregate, these harms are reshaping the digital public sphere in ways that exclude women and girls.

When girls abandon online learning for fear their images may be misused, or when women delete their accounts to escape harassment, societies lose leadership, innovation and the voices essential to progress.

Gender equality cannot advance when half the population is pushed out of digital spaces.

That is why UNFPA and partners convened the first-ever Africa Symposium on Technology-facilitated Gender-based Violence in November, convening leaders in digital rights and gender-based violence prevention and response. It is time to build alliances and explore solutions. Africa is home to multiple hubs of technological innovation, and to the world’s youngest population.

As the digital divide slowly closes, we must ensure that the technology being adopted is safe, private and secure, and does not reinforce or amplify existing gender and social inequalities.

Symposium attendees recognized the need for a bold, coordinated response, one that follows the same principles that guide all efforts to end gender-based violence: dignity, consent, confidentiality, privacy, and survivor-centered care.

We must create a world where “African innovators lead the way in designing digital ecosystems that are safe, ecosystems that are inclusive and empowering for all, and in particular for women and marginalized communities,” said Judy Karioko, from the International Research & Exchanges Board (IREX) in Kenya, at one of the Symposium’s sessions.

UNFPA is committed to making every space – physical or digital – safe for women and girls in all their diversity. Through the Making All Spaces Safe programme, supported by Global Affairs Canada, concrete action is being taken across Africa, including Benin, Ghana, Kenya and Tunisia, to integrate technology risks into efforts to end gender-based violence.

But no single institution can end digital violence alone. Governments, tech companies, educators, civil society, faith leaders, families – and every digital citizen – share responsibility.

The world’s future begins with Africa. As a region, and as a global community, we cannot wait. Because if we fail to make the online world safe, we fail to protect the future of girls, and the world growing up in the digital age.

Dr. Sennen Hounton is the UNFPA Regional Director for West and Central Africa, while Ms. Lydia Zigomo is the UNFPA Regional Director for East and Southern Africa

Source: Africa Renewal, 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');