Africa

Muhammadu Buhari’s life tracked dramatic changes over decades – and he was often at the centre of events.

Every day, Yondela Kolweni has to hold down her son, who screams and fights when it is time for his daily life-saving TB tablets—a painful reminder of her battle with the world’s top infectious killer disease. “It is a fight I win feeling awful about what I have to do,” says Kolweni (30), a Cape […]

Burna Boy, one of the biggest names in Afrobeats, says he didn't want his sound to be "in one box".

Doctors administer diphtheria and tetanus vaccinations provided by the World Health Organization (WHO) to children in Haiti displaced by the earthquake in 2010. Credit: Sophia Paris/UN Photo

By Naomi Myint Breuer
UNITED NATIONS, Jul 15 2025 (IPS)

The latest data highlights that the world is off track to meet the targets set by the Immunization Agenda 2030 (IA2030) to achieve 90 percent global immunization coverage for essential childhood vaccines and halve the number of unvaccinated children by 2030.

The World Health Organization (WHO) and the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) released the 2024 Estimates of National Immunization Coverage (WUENIC) on July 15, revealing both progress and challenges in global childhood immunization.

WUENIC, the world’s largest dataset on childhood immunization, reports on 16 antigens across 195 countries.

In 2024, 20 million children did not receive at least one dose of the diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis (DTP) vaccine, a global marker for childhood immunization coverage. Of those children, 14.3 million received no vaccines at all. This is 4 million more than the 2024 target and 1.4 million more than in 2019, the IA2030 baseline year.

“We’ve hit this very stubborn glass ceiling, and breaking through that glass to protect more children against vaccine-preventable diseases is becoming more difficult,” Dr. Kate O’Brien, Director of the Department of Immunization, Vaccines and Biologicals at WHO, said at a July 14 press briefing.

Conflicts are much to blame for the difficulty in immunization. Children living in one of the 26 countries affected by fragility, conflict or humanitarian emergencies are three times more likely to be unvaccinated than those who live in stable countries. Half of unvaccinated children live in these 26 countries.

“These aren’t just numbers. They are real children in places like Sudan and Yemen, where instability makes vaccine delivery difficult,” Thanbani Maphosa, Managing Director of Country Programmes for Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, said. “In these settings, reaching a charge can mean navigating danger, displacement and a fractured health system.”

However, the 14.3 zero-dose children is a reduction from the 2023 number of 14.4 zero-dose children, and 85 percent of infants in the world received three doses of the DTP in 2024, an increase of 1 million more from 2023.

“While that growth may sound modest, in each of these children, this means another child protected at the same time,” O’Brien said.

Through their Zero-Dose Immunization Program (ZIP), UNICEF and partners have vaccinated over 1 million children in conflict-affected regions of the Sahel and the Horn of Africa since 2023. In 2024, Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, supported more children against more diseases than ever before.

“That is not just a statistic. It is a testament to the resilience and determination of countries,” Maphosa said.

Furthermore, two-thirds of countries have maintained at least 90 percent coverage of four key vaccines over the past five years.

WUENIC reports there is improving immunization against measles. First-dose coverage rose to 84 percent, with 1.7 million children vaccinated in 2024, while second-dose coverage increased from 74 percent in 2023 to 76 percent in 2024.

Still, 20 million children missed their first dose, and 12 million did not complete their second, leaving 30 million at risk for measles. 360,000 measles cases were confirmed globally in 2024, the highest number since 2019. The number of countries with large and disruptive measles outbreaks rose to 60, almost double the 2022 number.

The rise in cases is due to an accumulation of people who are unvaccinated since the COVID-19 pandemic began.

Dr. Ephrem T. Lemango, Associate Director for Health and Global Chief of Immunization at UNICEF, warned that the progress made in 2024 is not enough to prevent measles outbreaks.

Lemango warned that even where national coverage rates appear high, disparities among districts put many disproportionately at risk. Measles outbreaks can only be prevented with 95 percent coverage with two measles vaccine doses in every community in every county.

Immunization efforts are challenged by fewer health facilities, workforce shortages, vaccine stockouts, and difficulties reaching remote communities, especially in areas affected by conflict or displacement. In high-income countries, immunization is challenged by decreased acceptance and vaccine hesitancy due to misinformation and distrust in institutions. Funding cuts are further putting children at risk for vaccine-preventable diseases. Nearly 50 countries have been disrupted by funding cuts.

“Misinformation and any forms of vaccine hesitancy are a reflection of a broader lack of trust or mistrust in the systems that deliver the vaccines, in the health workers that provide the vaccines, in the manufacturing facilities or ecosystem that manufactures the vaccines,” Lemango said.

Social media and the COVID-19 pandemic are largely to blame for disinformation and misinformation surrounding vaccines.

Lemango and O’Brien emphasized the importance of training health workers to address the questions and concerns of parents in regard to vaccinating their children and the critical role community leaders play in influencing public trust. O’Brien noted that a family’s local medical practitioner is the most influential voice in their decision to vaccinate their children.

“Political leaders, community leaders, religious leaders, and family leaders have a powerful influence on the choices that families make around the health of their children, and the voices of leaders can either reinforce trust or erode trust,” O’Brien said.

However, O’Brien emphasized that lack of access remains the primary barrier to immunization, rather than misinformation. Lemango noted that 95 percent of parents want their children to be vaccinated.

An area of notable progress is HPV vaccination. 43 million girls were vaccinated against HPV in 2024, setting the world on track to reach 86 million adolescents by the end of 2025. 60 million girls are now protected against cervical cancer, more than in any previous decade.

He noted that many countries are committing record levels of domestic financing to immunization, but a funding gap persists. Of the USD 11.9 billion needed to achieve their goals, only USD 9 billion has been raised.

Maphosa noted that millions of children are still not being reached and there is no “one-size-fits-all” solution. Lemango called on governments, partners and communities to close funding gaps, serve fragile or conflict-affected communities and address misinformation.

Maphosa emphasized the urgency of the situation, given a global rise in conflict, fragility and population. “Vaccines have never been more important and urgent than they are now,” he said.

He added that countries and organizations must work together to close the immunization gap so that every child is protected.

“That’s the promise of immunization,” he said. “One of the best tools the world has to ensure health, security and prosperity. And with continued commitment and continued investment, it’s a promise we can keep.”

 

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

• The Risks Artificial Intelligence Pose for the Global South
• Post-Earthquake Myanmar Faces ‘Immense’ Suffering, Cannot Be Forgotten
• WFP Deputy Chief Describes Unprecedented Humanitarian Crisis in Gaza

A Spaniard and two local people were shot multiple times during the conflict in northern Ethiopia, MSF says.

By Jomo Kwame Sundaram
KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia, Jul 15 2025 (IPS)

Trump’s billionaire cronies want more monopoly profits, not competition. With more policies crafted for them, wealth concentration is set to become greater than ever.

Jomo Kwame Sundaram

Neoliberalism?
There is no clear consensus on what neoliberal economics stands for now. Many who claim to be liberal economists have different, even contradictory views.

Some demand market competition and oppose monopolies and oligopolies. For others, property rights are crucial, typically strengthening monopoly rights.

Many avowed neoliberals deemphasise competition and hesitate to insist on antitrust action or opposition to abuses of market power.

Property rights confer monopoly or exclusive ownership rights to an asset, typically denying access to others except for payment. Many such rights are recent.

While UK Prime Minister from 1979, Margaret Thatcher triggered a worldwide neoliberal economic counter-revolution, especially in the Anglosphere.

With generally more limited public ownership, the US economy has long been more ‘private’, offering little scope for privatisation.

Tech Big Bro
PayPal and Palantir founder Peter Thiel is the most influential of the so-called ‘tech bros’ supporting re-elected US President Donald Trump.

Thiel was the two-term president’s biggest funder for his unexpectedly successful 2016 campaign. As former boss, funder and mentor, he is now Vice President JD Vance’s godfather.

In 2014, Thiel’s ‘Competition is for Losers’ established him as the lead apologist for lucrative rentier monopolies, especially those invoking intellectual property rights (IPRs).

Thiel noted ‘perfect competition’ is “both the ideal and the default state in Economics 101”. In textbooks, firms in competitive markets are presumed to be similar, selling the same goods.

Hence, they have no ‘market power’ and must sell at market-determined prices. When demand rises, firms invest to increase supply, reducing prices and profits.

In mainstream economics, there can be no economic rent under perfect competition. But prices can be raised more easily in cornered markets.

Buyers will then have no other source to buy from. Without competition, monopolies can maximise profits by controlling market supplies and prices.

Hence, profit maximisation involves capturing more rents in monopolistic conditions. To become richer, firms eschew competition in favour of monopoly.

Government role contradictory
Tech ‘Big Brother’ Thiel notes, “To an economist, every monopoly looks the same, whether it deviously eliminates rivals, secures a license from the state or innovates its way to the top.”

The state’s role is contradictory as government “works hard to create monopolies (by granting patents to new inventions)” while enforcing antitrust law to undermine them.

Thiel claims to be uninterested in “illegal bullies or government favorites”, but surely knows governments create and sustain the monopolies he so cherishes.

He notes that “Americans mythologize competition and credit it with saving us from socialist bread lines”. But for him, “capitalism and competition are opposites”.

“Capitalism is premised on the accumulation of capital, but under perfect competition, all profits get competed away.”

The advocate of monopoly claims monopolists are “incentivized to bend the truth” and to “lie to protect themselves … [from] … being audited, scrutinized and attacked”.

Thiel unabashedly acknowledges that rentiers have every incentive to protect, disguise and “conceal their monopoly” and incomes.

Instead, the billionaire rentier wants monopoly powers and profits to grow faster without being taxed or having to share.

Monopoly best for capitalism?
Thiel acknowledges that monopolists accumulate rents in a static world.

But he insists they “invent new and better things … Creative monopolies aren’t just good for the rest of society; they’re powerful engines for making it better.”

He insists a monopoly is “so good at what it does that no other firm can offer a close substitute”. For him, “the history of progress is a history of better monopoly businesses replacing incumbents”.

The tech billionaire insists decades of monopoly profits provide a powerful incentive to innovate. Thus, monopolies continue to drive progress.

He denounces mainstream neoliberal economists as “obsessed with competition as an ideal state? It is a relic of history … Their theories describe … perfect competition because that is what’s easy to model.”

“In the real world outside economic theory, every business is successful exactly to the extent that it does something others cannot … Monopoly is the condition of every successful business.”

Monopolies thrive under Trump
Unsurprisingly, many supposed neoliberals today stress property rights while ignoring liberal economics’ claim to promote competition.

Competition is dismissed as 19th-century economic liberalism. Meanwhile, contemporary monopoly capitalism accelerates wealth and income concentration.

But Thiel exaggerates monopolies’ contribution to human progress, capitalist dynamism and innovation, while understating their considerable harms.

With the tech bros increasingly supporting the president, Trump 2.0 promises to further enrich rentiers, especially those of their ilk.

His selective Liberation Day tariffs and other policies, especially his new ‘big beautiful bill’, will significantly increase, not reduce, US government debt while deepening American fiscal inequities.

As US tariffs, wars and other distractions preoccupy the world, unwitting MAGA loyalists remain loyal to Trump and his billionaire rentiers’ ‘counter-revolution’.

IPS UN Bureau

 

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

• Trump Undresses Rival Trade Myths
• Trump Accord Sows Discord in US Empire
• Trump’s ‘Shock and Awe’ Tariffs
• Intellectual Property Cause of Death, Genocide
• Intellectual Property Monopolies Block Vaccine Access
• Intellectual Property Raises Costs of Living
• Neoliberal Reforms Strengthening Monopoly Power and Abuses
• What’s different about Trump’s tariffs?
• Trump’s Trade War in Perspective
• Intellectual Property Regime Undermines Equity, Progress
• Free Trade Agreements Promote Corporate Interests

By Bhumika Muchhala
NEW YORK, Jul 15 2025 (IPS)

The Fourth International Conference on Financing for Development (FfD4) took place in Seville, Spain from 30th June to 3rd July amidst intensifying attacks on multilateralism, unprecedented cuts to global aid and development financing, and regression of decades of progress in the fight against poverty.

Participants at the once-a-decade United Nations (UN) conference included 70 heads of states, over 1,000 civil society leaders, and over 400 policymakers from governments around the world, who engaged in over 100 panel events and 50 protest actions.

Importantly, civil society actors experienced an unprecedented wave of restrictions and lack of access, from difficulties obtaining accreditations, discriminatory profiling, chilling of freedom of speech, and exclusion from key negotiations.

This left many advocates, including those who had followed the FfD4 negotiations closely, to organize a protest at the conference’s venue on its final day.

However, the outcome document, or Compromiso de Sevilla, was adopted weeks ago by consensus of UN member states on 17th June in New York, making this fourth conference the first where an outcome document was agreed before the Conference began. This was lamented by many participants as rendering the conference itself a purely symbolic event, without the final negotiations taking place.

The adoption of the text was marked by the official withdrawal of the U.S. who stated a refusal to participate in Sevilla, who waited to withdraw until almost a year of intergovernmental negotiations had concluded.

The role of the US in the negotiations has been publicly reported, in terms of aggressively blocking and requesting deletions across entire paragraphs of the seven themes of FfD, that of domestic public resources, international development cooperation, private finance, sovereign debt, systemic issues, science and technology, and follow-up and monitoring.

Also, driving the race to the bottom during the negotiations was the European Union and other developed country delegations such as Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Japan and the U.K. The aggregate effect inflicted dilutions, distortions, and erasure of global economic governance milestones and actionable commitments into a reaffirmation of the status quo, with many critics arguing that the Compromiso de Sevilla shows little shift, or even backsliding, from the previous three FfD outcome documents in 2015 (Addis Ababa Action Agenda), 2008 (Doha Declaration) and 2002 (Monterrey Consensus).

In fact, lost in the sweeping tide of attention that private financing, and in particular blended finance and incentivizing institutional investors, received at the Seville conference, is the political genealogy and systemic origins of FfD.

Its roots are in the collective initiative of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) in the late 1990s to address the systemic asymmetries that characterize the international financial architecture, resulting in the boom-bust financial crises experienced by the global South through 1980s and 1990s.

The nations of NAM called for a multilateral process that would generate action towards reforms that expand policy and fiscal space for structural transformation toward economic, monetary and financial sovereignty in the South. The 2002 Monterrey Consensus argued that the systemic drivers of global inequalities between nations and regions cannot be resolved on the national terrain alone—international cooperation and democratic global economic governance is critical.

Specifically, these systemic drivers refer to the key pillars of the international financial architecture: the international currency hierarchy marked by US dollar hegemony—or the scaffolding of unequal economic exchange, deregulated capital flows, market-based exchange rates, financial speculation and dependency, chronic sovereign debt distress, and a trade architecture defined by extractive, value-chain dependent and low-value-added production structures that are the legacy of colonialism.

Debt Battleground

At a time when debt servicing costs across the global South have reached a historic high of $1.4 trillion in 2023 (principal plus interest), public budgets are being eviscerated, the SDGs derailed, and climate action rendered into a fiscal impossibility. In this looming context, FfD4 fell far short on delivering meaningful reform of the outdated and imbalanced global debt architecture.

While the first iteration of outcome document, The Elements Paper, issued on 24 November 2024, included proposals for a new multilateral sovereign debt resolution framework for fair, binding, and effective crisis prevention and burden sharing.

At the heart of the debacle of sovereign debt is the absence of a sovereign debt crisis resolution mechanism. Meanwhile, the creditor profile has shifted over the decades from predominantly official creditors to a five-fold increase in private creditors, who not only refuse to participate in equitable debt restructuring but also impose high and variable interest rates, creating a crisis in the cost of capital for sovereign borrowers.

The historical context of the post-war regime of international crisis management governed by international financial institutions (IFIs) conditions continued market access and international financial legitimacy on both the uniformity and continuity of debt servicing. In turn, the means of debt repayment are enforced through austerity measures which has for decades eroded social equity, economic resilience, and the delivery of public services and systems across the global South.

During the FfD4 negotiations, the Association of Small Island Developing States, the Africa Group, and countries like Cuba, Brazil, and Pakistan called for the creation of a UN Framework Convention on Debt. Indeed, external debt payments by many countries far exceed aid and other financial transfers, or public expenditures on essential public services like health and education, generating both a net outflow of financial resources from South to North while simultaneously eroding economic development, social equity, and well-being.

Supported and campaigned for by global civil society, the framework would encompass a global consensus on the rules, principles, and structures of the various stages of the debt cycle. By locating deliberations in the UN General Assembly’s one-state-one -vote system, member states argued the Convention would facilitate the fairness and transparency of debt resolution mechanisms and civil society advocates clarified that it would democratize the global debt architecture from exclusive and creditor-dominated G20 and IMF forums.

However, the staunch opposition of most creditor countries, in particular the US and EU, led to the deletion of the Convention language and an insistence on relegating debt issues to the Group of 20 (G20) Common Framework. Critics in civil society and academia have consistently argued that the G20 status quo has failed to resolve debt distress and create fiscal space, is unable to ensure equitable participation of private creditors (e.g. comparability of treatment), enables a lack of transparency in debt contracts, and blocks rules on responsible lending and borrowing, for example.

Unsurprisingly, debt crises are reproduced while any resulting fiscal space is funneled into paying off private creditors, generating a ‘kicking the can down the road’ scenario that simply extends debt purgatory. The final debt architecture agreement in paragraph 50(f) states that member states “… will initiate an intergovernmental process at the UN, with a view to closing gaps in the debt architecture and exploring options to address debt sustainability, including but not limited to a multilateral sovereign debt mechanism.

While an intergovernmental process is included its function is limited to “making recommendations,” fundamentally weakening the mandate of member states to take meaningful action on debt.

Reign of Private Finance

In the dozens of speeches made and hundreds of events held in Seville, it was impossible not to notice the aggressive promotion—and normative consensus—of private financing, proffered as a monolithic answer to narrow the estimated $4.3 trillion financing gap in the South.

The derisking development model, replete with its constellation of mechanisms such as blended finance and guarantees, dominated FfD4 with a laser focus on how private capital can be incentivized by the global South through the use of securitization, or the bundling of individual project loans into vehicles that can be bought by financial funds.

Buttressed by over a decade of the ‘Billions to Trillions’ narrative authored by the World Bank and the UN ecosystem, the idea asserts, with brazen decisiveness, that scarce public resources in the global South will always fall short of ever-growing development and climate financing needs and thus, private (and profit-seeking) capital is indispensable.

The seemingly logical resolution to this depoliticized reality becomes a quid pro quo: fiscal gaps can only be closed by attracting Wall Street (e.g. investment banks, asset managers, insurers, pension and private equity funds, among others) to invest in development, infrastructure, and green projects.

Commitments to private capital mobilization run rife across the Compromiso de Sevilla text. For example, scaling up private financing from “public sources by 2030 by strengthening the use of risk-sharing and blended finance instruments, such as first-loss capital, guarantees, local currency financing, and foreign exchange risk instruments, taking into account national circumstances” is highlighted.

In turn, such a scaling up requires “an enabling policy environment which facilitates private investment in agriculture and food systems, and the role that public investments can play in incentivizing and derisking private investments.” To realize this, member states are encouraged to “strategically attract foreign development investment, including from institutional investors.

However, the ‘billions to trillions’ aim of activating the supposed spigot of private cash has been recently exposed by multiple sources as a myth. A Financial Times article titled, “The magic pony of private finance fails to fund the global green transition,” revealed that only 10 per cent of private financing went to global South nations.

The ratio of private to public capital has struggled to rise above 1:1, and institutional investors like pension funds are notable by their almost total absence. Furthermore, number-crunching from the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development shows that every dollar of multilateral investment activated merely 30 cents of private investment.

Simply put, trillions are not manifesting. One explanation is that the scale of profits expected by financiers cannot be delivered with public goods and services investments; they two are inherently contradictory in nature.

Two fundamental issues persist.

First, rather than galvanizing new heights of financing, private creditors are in reality responsible for net outflows of financial resources from developing countries and into their own coffers. Indeed, the World Bank discloses that since 2022, “foreign private creditors have extracted nearly US$141 billion more in debt service payments from public sector borrowers in developing economies than they disbursed in new financing … this withdrawal has upended the financing landscape for development.”

And second, structural, institutional, and political changes to address fiscal space, such as redressing tax evasion and avoidance, fiscal restraint rules, constraints on public money creation, economic diversification, and technology transfer, for example, are conveniently elided.

Survival of the Systemic?

The integral focus of the Monterrey Consensus in addressing the need for international monetary cooperation, recurrent financial crises, vulnerabilities to exogenous shocks, and adverse spillovers of rich country policies across the global South has essentially evaporated from FfD discourse and text.

In a text that supposedly addresses the international financial architecture, it is shocking that there is no meaningful reference to the international monetary system, nor to central banks, the core institution of national money creation. Indeed, the 4th FfD text presents the sharpest regression of systemic issues across the four FfD texts produced over 23 years, despite the recent experience of the COVID pandemic and current debt crisis exposing the systemic fault lines of a global financial architecture designed to extract rather than provide.

However, one key deliverable is offered in the outcome document, that of addressing the inordinate power of Credit Rating Agencies (CRAs) in determining the cost of capital in the global South and the central role they play in both debt and climate crises.

Paragraph 55 states a decision to “establish a recurring special high-level meeting on credit ratings under the auspices of ECOSOC for dialogue among Member States, credit rating agencies, regulators, standard setters, long-term investors, and public institutions that publish independent debt sustainability analysis.”

While this falls short of proposals to establish an intergovernmental commission to regulate CRAs for the objective of producing accurate, objective, and long-term oriented credit ratings, it is a potential step forward in bringing CRAs into global economic governance.

There is widespread agreement by UN member states on the urgency for multilateral oversight on the oligopoly of three central CRAs, that of Moody’s, Standard and Poor, and Fitch, with attention to their multiple dysfunctionalities.

Recent pandemic and debt crises have exposed challenges, from a developing country perspective, in terms of bias and pro-cyclicality in ratings, conflicts of interest, and penalization of debt, climate and social vulnerabilities.

Beyond the inadequacy of CRAs rating methodologies and bias in implementation that undermine developing countries’ access to capital markets and increase their borrowing costs by inflating risk premiums, advocates for financial regulation have asserted that CRA regulation must include the establishment of multilateral, public, and independent rating agencies, promoting competition to avoid quasi-monopolistic market dynamics.

The spotlight on CRAs has the potential to hold financial power to account, however, it will depend on the ability of member state voices and proposals to set the agenda forward, rather than that of CRAs and other financial actors.

Given the colossal challenges in development financing at a time of global authoritarianism, war and conflict, and the spectre of ‘post-aid international development,’ what are the possibilities of democratizing global economic governance? The right to development, inclusive dignity, historical equity, and the political economy of inequality will require grappling with old and new forms of power.

One thing is certain. The way forward must hold steadfast to the aspiration and vision of a fair, equitable, and effective financial architecture that works for the majority.

Bhumika Muchhala is Senior Advisor, Third World Network and Adjunct Professor, The New School.

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');  

Ghana beat Tanzania 4-1 to secure their quarter-final place at the 2024 Women's Africa Cup of Nations as holders South Africa secure top spot in Group C.

Dr Tshepo Lipholo, an opposition MP, is yet to apply for bail and remains in police custody

A child receives treatment at a cholera clinic in the DRC, where clean water is scarce and healthcare even scarcer. Credit: UNICEF

By Shreya Komar
UNITED NATIONS, Jul 14 2025 (IPS)

The Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) is grappling with one of its worst cholera outbreaks in recent history, exposing deep systemic cracks in public health, water infrastructure, and humanitarian response, leaving its youngest citizens in peril.

On April 3, 2025, the United Nations released a stark warning: a fast-spreading cholera outbreak in the southern province of Tanganyika was placing thousands at grave risk. As of that date, 9 out of 11 health zones in the province were affected, with over 1,450 confirmed cases and 27 deaths, marking a six-fold increase compared to the previous year.

By early June, the outbreak had exploded far beyond Tanganyika. The World Health Organization (WHO) reported 29,392 suspected cholera cases and 620 deaths nationwide, making this the worst outbreak in the country in six years. Most alarmingly, children, especially those under five, are dying in disproportionate numbers due to weakened immune systems, chronic malnutrition, and an almost total collapse of access to clean water and sanitation in many areas.

A recent Instagram post from the WHO underscored the scale of response efforts: “To tackle the rise in #cholera cases & deaths in #DRCongo, WHO is mobilizing resources for the hardest-hit areas: emergency beds, free medical care, and deployment of over 7,000 community health workers.”

Cholera is an acute diarrheal infection caused by ingesting food or water contaminated with the Vibrio cholerae bacterium. It is entirely preventable and highly treatable. So why is it still killing hundreds in a single outbreak?

“The reason cholera has persisted is that we have not addressed poverty to the level that we should,” said Dr. Anita Zaidi, director of the Enteric and Diarrheal Diseases program at the Gates Foundation.

The answer lies not in the biology of the disease, but in the fragile reality of life in the eastern DRC. In provinces like Tanganyika, North Kivu, and South Kivu already scarred by decades of armed conflict, mass displacement, and collapsing infrastructure the cholera bacterium finds ideal conditions to spread.

A 2024 study on cholera risk in Goma found that the lack of water infrastructure forced communities to rely on unsafe sources like Lake Kivu, the small Lake Vert, and the Mubambiro River, which are often contaminated with human waste.

In the most affected areas, only 20 percent of residents have access to safe drinking water. Healthcare infrastructure is threadbare, with limited beds, medicine, or trained personnel to handle waves of acute cases. Years of humanitarian funding cuts have only made the situation worse especially for women and children.

Between July 2024 and June 2025, nearly 4.5 million children under five are expected to suffer from acute malnutrition in the DRC, 1.4 million of whom are experiencing severe acute malnutrition. Cholera, which causes rapid dehydration and can be fatal within hours, is especially deadly in malnourished children. With their immune systems already compromised, even the smallest lapse in hydration or care can become fatal.

Still, field efforts are outpaced by the scale of the emergency. In 2017, the Global Task Force on Cholera Control (GTFCC) launched the “Ending Cholera: A Global Roadmap to 2030”, which aimed to eliminate the disease from 20 countries, including the DRC.

The strategy emphasized early detection, integrated prevention (clean water, sanitation, vaccination), and international coordination. But with only five years left before 2030, the roadmap’s vision is faltering in the DRC. In 2023, the DRC recommitted to cholera elimination, as documented by the WHO, but outbreaks have only worsened.

A Doctors Without Borders emergency response in Lomera, South Kivu, highlights the impact of unmanaged gold rushes, poor sanitation, and overburdened clinics creating a perfect storm for cholera transmission.

Efforts by the UN and NGOs have ramped up in recent months. Oral Cholera Vaccines (OCVs) are being deployed in hotspots. Emergency treatment centers are being established. Supplies are arriving, albeit slowly. But a true resolution requires structural investments in safe water infrastructure, consistent access to healthcare, and conflict stabilization.

More importantly, child-focused solutions must be prioritized. In a recent peer-reviewed article, Congolese researcher Aymar Akilimali called for dedicated pediatric cholera wards in eastern DRC, noting that most children have no access to tailored emergency care even during active outbreaks.

He also stated that “a community-based and multisectoral response must be implemented, including an anti cholera vaccination campaign, a budgeted response plan with involved partners, as well as the development of national cholera control plans, epidemiological surveillance, risk communication on cholera, community awareness, and social mobilization.”

The cholera outbreak in the DRC is not just a public health crisis; it is a humanitarian failure. It is a warning signal of what happens when decades of conflict, poverty, and weak governance go unaddressed. As 2030 approaches, the question isn’t whether we can end cholera, it’s whether we’re willing to invest in the lives of those most at risk of it.

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({js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');  

“Plastic Ocean” by Alejandro Duràn, one of the artworks previously on display in the UN lobby. Credit: Jennifer Levine/IPS

By Jennifer Xin-Tsu Lin Levine
UNITED NATIONS, Jul 14 2025 (IPS)

The United Nations’ HOMO SARGASSUM exhibition served as a public immersion into the marine world and called upon viewers to take action in the face of the climate crisis, specifically regarding invasive species and water pollution.

For the past month, an art exhibition entitled HOMO SARGASSUM took up residence in the New York headquarters lobby in connection to World Ocean Month and the 2025 UN Ocean Conference. Organized by the Tout-Monde Art Foundation. In its final week on display, visitors walked through the various projected films, sculptures and photographs. The exhibit closed on July 11.

The work is described as an immersive multisensorial art and science exhibition intended to bring together various experts in science, scholarship and creativity from the Caribbean to share their perspectives on the prevalent environmental and social issue. The exhibit is primarily an introspective study of sargassum, a type of seaweed or algae commonly found on the coast of the Americas and in the Caribbean.

Sargassum, which has proliferated significantly in recent years due to pollution and chemical fertilizer, releases toxic gases that harm nearby residents in water and on land. Animals struggle to survive, and humans experience respiratory failures and burns. This algae has inspired fear since Christopher Columbus recorded his crew’s sighting of the plant. Sargassum has also become a symbol recently for climate change in the Caribbean as well as the coexisting nature of marine and human life.

Co-curator and executive and artistic director of the Tout-Monde Art Foundation Vanessa Selk described the exhibit as a journey rather than a singular experience. She said, “Much like sargassum migrating through the Atlantic Ocean, we encounter natural and human-made challenges such as pandemics, pollutants and hurricanes. This narrative of the global ecological crisis, reflected in silent floating algae, warns us to change our existing paradigms and consider ourselves as one with our environment.”

Billy Gerard Frank, one of the featured artists in HOMO SARGASSUM, echoes this sentiment.

Frank created a mixed-media piece entitled “Poetics of Relation and Entanglement” with a painting featuring Columbus’ archival notes and sargassum pigment, as well as a film he shot on the island of Carriacou. The film centered on a large metal tank surrounded by sargassum, which had washed on shore and rusted onto the massive object. He specifically shot the film around the sargassum and the tank, an eyesore for the locals who used the beach and a barrier to boats trying to leave. Growing up in Grenada, Frank recalls sargassum as a mild inconvenience but explained how it has become more prevalent due to climate change.

However, only in recent years has conversation around sargassum shifted towards the impact of climate change and geographical inequities, like, as Frank noted, how smaller islands that produce significantly lower levels of pollution are the worst affected by climate change through natural disasters.

He referenced the recent Hurricane Beryl, a Category 5 storm that “completely devastated” islands like Carriacou. His inclusion of Columbus’ notes brings a decolonial perspective: the threats Caribbean islands face from mounting climate change are exacerbated by their history of occupation, mostly from European colonial powers. In a global organization like the UN where historical, geographical and environmental context is key to making any decision, such an interdisciplinary perspective is key.

From countless gifts from member states to various donations, the UN has been an artistic hub since its inception. As both a tourist attraction and space of work for international diplomats, the UN is a particularly ripe space for more radical, political art—notably Guernica, a tapestry based on a Picasso painting portraying the Spanish Civil War—due to its broad audience.

Speaking to IPS, Frank shared how influential art has been in political, social and intellectual movements, saying, “historically…creators, writers, and artists have been able to forge ahead and create new spaces…it gives us some hope that our work and the calling are even more important.”

Frank also told IPS how important it was for him to have the work featured at the UN.

“Because the UN is also a site of consternation right now, specifically with everything that’s happening globally. And in fact, that’s the space where this type of work should be, where there should be more conversation, and a space in which it could create a critical dialogue amongst people who work there, but also the public facing that too.”

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({js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');   Related Articles

• HIV/AIDS Funding Crisis Risks Reversing Decades of Global Progress
• Does the UN Overstep Its Responsibility to Protect Mandate?
• A Growing Gap between Principle and Implementation: 20 Years of Responsibility to Protect

Muhammadu Buhari, who led Nigeria as both a military ruler and elected president, died in London on Sunday.

Clara Luvanga on meeting Al-Nassr team-mate Ronaldo and how Tanzania are gaining "experience" at their second Wafcon.

A garden of medicinal plants in Cali, Columbia. The Cali Fund, unveiled earlier this year, will ensure that companies that profit from digital sequencing will pay into a fund to protect biodiversity. Credit: Stella Paul/IPS

By Stella Paul
HYDERABAD, India, Jul 14 2025 (IPS)

When the Cali Fund was unveiled in February on the sidelines of COP16.2 in Rome, the announcement sent ripples through the global conservation community. For the first time ever, companies that profit from digital sequence information (DSI)—the digitized genetic material of plants, animals, and microorganisms—will be expected to pay into a multilateral fund to protect the very biodiversity they benefit from.

The Fund, estimated to mobilize USD 1 billion a year, was immediately hailed as a historic breakthrough. Half of the money is earmarked for Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (IPLCs)—especially women and youth—in recognition of their role as stewards of the world’s genetic resources.

But three months in, as the launch celebration fades, hard questions begin to emerge: Will corporations pay voluntarily? Will money reach those who need it most? And can a fund that is built on goodwill deliver real-world impact fast enough?

How the Fund Was Born: From Cali to Rome

The Cali Fund was born out of Decision 16/2 at COP16 in Cali, Colombia, under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). Until now, companies could freely access and commercialize digital genetic data without any obligation to share their profits with the countries or communities the data came from.

The Fund seeks to end that free ride. With the UN Multi-Partner Trust Fund Office serving as the administrator and with backing from UNEP, UNDP, and the CBD Secretariat, the Cali Fund promises strong institutional muscle. Its governance structure includes governments, UN agencies, and representatives from IPLCs—making it a test case for embedding justice into the global bioeconomy.

What the Cali Fund Pledges

New money for nature: About USD 1 billion a year from the private sector, not governments or traditional donors.

Corporate accountability: Businesses using DSI are expected to contribute 1 percent of profits or 0.1 percent of revenue.

Justice for IPLCs: A guaranteed 50 percent of funds goes directly to Indigenous and local communities.

Scientific and digital infrastructure: Resources will build DSI capacity, support biodiversity strategies, and close digital divides—especially in the Global South.

A Billion-Dollar Question: Will Companies Pay?

Despite the optimism, serious concerns are rising about its viability even as the Fund’s foundations are still being laid.

First, corporate contributions are voluntary, and there’s no mechanism to enforce them. Sectors like pharma, biotech, cosmetics, and synthetic biology rely heavily on DSI—but many don’t even track their usage. Expanding the Fund’s reach beyond willing participants could provoke resistance unless countries impose stronger regulations.

“The Secretariat continues to engage with business to ensure that intentions to contribute translate into actual payments,” CBD Executive Secretary Astrid Schomaker tells IPS News.

Accountability is another major issue. While the Fund pledges participatory governance, the specifics of auditing, public reporting, and oversight are still vague.

The Realities Behind the Rhetoric

The figure of USD 1 billion is impressive—but it’s not legally binding. Without transparency and enforcement, there’s a risk companies could treat the Fund as a PR checkbox rather than a true commitment.

“It’s crucial that disbursements align with the self-identified needs of IPLCs,” Schomaker says. “That’s the responsibility of the Steering Committee.”

The steering committee that Schomaker refers to was formed in April with 28-members representing National Focal Points, representatives of indigenous peoples and local communities, the scientific community and the private sector. The Steering Committee is expected to meet twice in 2025, once virtually during the second quarter of the year and once in person later in the year. Two meetings are expected in 2026.

But critics argue that’s not enough. Without robust systems for tracking DSI use, collecting dues, and allocating funds, the Cali Fund could become yet another initiative that sounds good but achieves little.

India: A Biodiversity Giant Watching Closely

India—one of the most biodiverse countries and a rising player in the DSI economy—is watching the Cali Fund closely.

“If the Fund is equitably governed and recognizes India as a priority beneficiary, it could support our protected areas, community conservation, and biodiversity research,” says Achalendra Reddy, Chair of India’s Biodiversity Board.

However, Reddy flags that for the Fund to truly benefit countries like India, three things are essential: 1) Transparent allocation mechanisms to ensure funds reach national and local actors; 2) Support for locally led efforts, not top-down programs; and 3) Complementarity, so the Fund adds to—rather than replaces—existing domestic and international investments.

If done right, the Fund could help plug chronic funding gaps and scale up conservation across India and the Global South.

Mrinalini Rai is the head of an advocacy organization that coordinates the CBD Women’s Caucus, a coalition of 300–500 women’s and indigenous rights groups that work to integrate gender equality into the CBD and related international agreements.

Speaking to IPS, Rai appears to agree with Reddy: “The launch of the Cali Fund is a promising step towards addressing that gap. However, for it to be truly transformative, the fund must be accessible, inclusive, and responsive to the realities of women biodiversity champions and defenders—especially those from Indigenous Peoples and local communities. Transparent processes, flexible funding, and dedicated support for capacity strengthening will be key to overcoming historic barriers and ensuring that no one is left behind, she says.

Speed vs. Sustainability: A Cautionary Note

Experts warn that rushing the Fund’s implementation could undermine its long-term credibility. “Genetic resources are national assets. So is DSI,” says Nithin Ramakrishnan, a DSI policy researcher with India’s Center for Public Policy Research.

“CBD and its member states must prioritize sustainability over speed and avoid reducing benefit-sharing to just a financial transaction,” he says, cautioning against letting corporations dictate biodiversity governance. “If countries are made responsible for reporting DSI usage to companies, we risk placing corporate interests above sovereign conservation agendas,” he adds.

Why the Cali Fund Still Matters

Despite its growing pains, the Cali Fund represents a paradigm shift. For the first time, the global community is acknowledging that genetic information has monetary value—and that value must be shared equitably, not extracted and hoarded.

As Vishaish Uppal—Governance, Law and Policy Director at WW India—notes, the Cali Fund “speaks to the third, often overlooked, pillar of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity: benefit-sharing.”

That matters deeply in today’s context of digital colonialism, where genetic data is extracted from the Global South and monetized in the Global North—leaving Indigenous and local communities out of the loop.

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({js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');   Related Articles

• Amidst Choking Garbage, Locals Join Hands to Build a Zero-Waste Bali
• Lawyer-Turned-Activist Bhuwan Ribhu Honored for Leading a Campaign to End Child Marriage
• World’s Largest Religious Gathering Becomes Trans-Inclusive Despite Controversies

Cameroon's Paul Biya, 92, has been power since 1982 and could govern until he is nearly 100.

UN Secretary General António Guterres addresses the session “Strengthening multilateralism, economic - financial affairs and artificial intelligence” on July 6 at the 17th summit of BRICS in Rio de Janeiro. For the first time ever, artificial intelligence was a major topic of concern at the BRICS summit. Credit: UN Photo/Ana Carolina Fernandes

By Naomi Myint Breuer
UNITED NATIONS, Jul 14 2025 (IPS)

Artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly developing and leaving its mark across the globe. Yet the implementation of AI risks widening the gap between the Global North and South.

It is projected that the AI market’s global revenue will increase by 19.6 percent each year. By 2030, AI could contribute USD 15.7 trillion to the global economy. However, the increases to nations’ GDP will be unequally dispersed, with North America and China experiencing the most gains while the Global South gains far less.

The risks of AI to the Global South

Due to smaller capacities to fund research, development and implementation, fewer countries in the Global South are adopting AI technology. Access to affordable AI compute to train AI models is one of the AI field’s greatest barriers to entry in the Global South, according to the 2024 UN report, “Governing AI for Humanity.”

Further, AI is designed to create profitable market extraction that does not benefit the global majority, according to Vilas Dhar, President and Trustee of the Patrick J. McGovern Foundation. As countries in the Global North are AI’s primary investors, it is being developed to address their needs.

“The result is a quiet erosion of political and economic autonomy,” he said. “Without deliberate intervention, AI risks becoming a mechanism for reinforcing historical patterns of exploitation through technical means. It also risks losing the incredible value of diverse, globally minded inputs into designing our collective AI future.”

Across the world, people risk losing their jobs to AI, but many countries in the Global South are reliant on labor intensive industries, and AI poses a greater threat to increasing unemployment and poverty. Particularly children, women, youths, people with disabilities, older workers, creatives and people with jobs susceptible to automation are at risk.

According to Daron Acemoglu, professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, labor-replacing AI poses a greater threat to workers in the developing world, as capital-intensive technology may not be useful in these nations where oftentimes capital is scarce and labor is abundant and cheap. Technology that prioritizes labor-intensive production is better suited to their comparative advantage.

“Because advanced economies have no reason to invest in such labor-intensive technologies, the trajectory of technological change will increasingly disfavor poor countries,” he said.

If these trends continue, these nations will experience increased unemployment and fall behind in the deployment of capital-intensive AI, due to limited financial resources and digital skill sets. More AI policies and guidelines, as well as education on data privacy and algorithmic bias, could assist in reducing this inequality.

Evidently, AI threatens to widen the gap between the Global North and South, as AI capacities are consolidated within a small group of institutions and regions. In Dhar’s view, AI will need to be designed to serve people and problems rather than be focused on profit maximization.

“If left unaddressed, this imbalance will cement a way of thinking about the world that mirrors the development of the Internet or social media – a process we do not want to replicate,” Dhar said.

Opportunities of the new technology

But the development of AI also poses opportunities for the Global South.

AI could design context-specific systems for local areas in the Global South that are not just based on the Global North, according to Dhar. “It can unlock new models of inclusion and resilience,” he said.

For example, AI could aid farmers in decision-making by informing them of weather and drought predictions using geospatial intelligence, as well as of marketing price information. AI could also help train farmers and other producers. It can also be used to improve education and healthcare in nations where these are major issues harming their populations and stunting development.

Acemoglu said that AI should be developed to complement rather than replace human labor for these benefits to become possible. “That will require forward-looking leadership on the part of policymakers,” he said.

AI in conflict

AI is also starting to make an appearance in conflict. In Ukraine, autonomous drones are being used, which are capable of tracking and engaging enemies, as well as BAD.2 model robot dogs, which are ground drones that can survey areas for enemies. Autonomous machine guns are also used, in which AI helps spot and target enemies.

The use of AI in conflict poses an ethical dilemma. AI could protect human lives on one side of the conflict but pose a great threat to the lives on the other end of the battlefield. This also raises the question of whether AI should be given the power to engage in harm.

But perhaps the use of AI can reduce the number of people engaging in conflicts harming developing countries and move these people to other sectors where they can realize more potential and aid their country’s economic development.

What international frameworks should do

Clear international frameworks must be established to prevent a rise in inequality and a greater gap between the Global North and South.

For the first time ever, AI was a major topic of discussion at the 17th BRICS summit, which serves as a coordination forum for nations from the Global South, in Rio de Janeiro. BRICS member countries signed the Leaders’ Declaration on Global Governance of Artificial Intelligence, which presents guidelines to ensure AI is developed and used responsibly to advance sustainability and inclusive growth.

The declaration called on members of the UN to promote including emerging markets and developing countries (EMDCs) and the Global South in decision-making regarding AI.

“New technologies must operate under a governance model that is fair, inclusive, and equitable. The development of AI must not become a privilege for a handful of countries, nor a tool of manipulation in the hands of millionaires,” Brazilian president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva said at the summit.

However, the UN report “Governing AI for Humanity” found that 118 countries, most of which are in the Global South, were not part of a sample of non-UN AI governance initiatives, while seven countries, all of which are in the Global North, were included in all initiatives.

According to Dhar, global governance must create a more equitable distribution of power that entails sharing ownership and embedding the Global South at every level of institutions, agreements and investments, rather than simply for consultation. These nations must also be aided in building capacity, sharing infrastructure, scientific discovery and participation in creating global frameworks, he said.

In his remarks at the BRICS summit, UN Secretary-General António Guterres expressed his concern over the weaponization of AI and stressed the importance of AI governance that is focused on equity. He said in order for this to be done, the current “multipolar world” must be addressed.

“We cannot govern AI effectively—and fairly—without confronting deeper, structural imbalances in our global system,” Guterres said.

Dhar emphasized that the inclusion of every person in the conversation on AI is crucial to creating legitimate global technological governance.

The future of AI is being negotiated with immediacy and urgency,” Dhar said. “Whether it becomes a force for collective progress or a new vector for inequality depends on who is empowered to shape it.”

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({js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');   Related Articles

• WFP Deputy Chief Describes Unprecedented Humanitarian Crisis in Gaza
• Post-Earthquake Myanmar Faces ‘Immense’ Suffering, Cannot Be Forgotten

A baby will be placed for adoption in UK after being trafficked from Nigeria. She may never know her real parents.

Credit: Piroschka Van De Wouw/Reuters via Gallo Images

By Samuel King and Inés M. Pousadela
BRUSSELS, Belgium / MONTEVIDEO, Uruguay, Jul 14 2025 (IPS)

Donald Trump’s bullying tactics ahead of NATO’s annual summit, held in The Hague in June, worked spectacularly. By threatening to redefine NATO’s article 5 – the collective defence provision that has anchored western security since 1949 – Trump won commitments from NATO allies to almost triple their defence spending to five per cent of GDP by 2035. European defence budgets will balloon from around US$500 billion to over US$1 trillion annually, essentially matching US spending levels.

This is a staggering shift. Some NATO members currently spend around 1.2 per cent of GDP on traditional defence items, making the leap to five per cent an extraordinary proposition. The UK alone is earmarking US$1.3 billion to restore tactical nuclear capabilities, while the European Union (EU) has approved a US$176 billion fund for joint defence projects. Member states will even be allowed to breach normal debt limits without penalty – a clear signal that defence spending now trumps all other priorities.

At a time when people across NATO countries struggle with living costs and feel public services have been cut to the bone, this remilitarisation threatens deeper economic insecurity. More military spending may mean less for education, healthcare and programmes supporting those most in need. The UK has already announced cuts to international aid, which a few years ago stood at 0.7 per cent of gross national income, to 0.3 per cent by 2027 to pay for defence, and other countries are following suit. The upshot will be a massive transfer of income from the world’s poorest people to politically powerful defence corporations, mostly based in the USA.

A further alarming aspect of NATO’s spending surge is what it lacks: meaningful transparency requirements or standardised oversight mechanisms. Defence procurement typically operates behind closed doors, so normal accountability rules don’t apply. Decisions are shrouded in secrecy, complex international supply chains make oversight harder and industry-government relationships blur ethical lines. The revolving door between officials and contractors compromises independent decision-making, while national security provides convenient cover for decisions that might not withstand public scrutiny.

Rapid spending increases will exacerbate these accountability problems. The pandemic showed that sudden shifts in state spending are rarely transparent and provide opportunities for corruption. As governments race to meet deadlines and pressure from Trump mounts to show immediate results, expedited procurement processes are likely to bypass normal checks and balances.

History offers sobering lessons. In Afghanistan, billions supposed to develop local defence capacity disappeared into ghost projects and phantom battalions. Corruption undermined military effectiveness by producing substandard equipment and compromising logistics networks, helping enable the Taliban’s rapid return to power. Ukraine’s experience provides another cautionary tale—despite intense international scrutiny since Russia’s invasion, it took years to root out corrupt networks that had captured large portions of the defence budget.

Meanwhile, Russia has spent decades honing its malign influence operations, using cash and networks of cronies to hollow out democratic processes in western states, including many NATO members. A defence spending boom with no accountability safeguards risks creating fresh vulnerabilities authoritarian states and organised criminal groups can exploit.

The solution is to democratise defence spending. Recent research on EU defence procurement reveals that more transparent military contracting consistently produces lower corruption levels. Countries with greater transparency spend money more efficiently, with fewer cost overruns and higher-quality equipment.

One of the most glaring gaps in NATO’s current approach is the absence of civil society from defence governance. Other government ministries routinely consult with civil society, but defence ministries make major spending decisions with minimal input from those who can ensure choices reflect real human security needs and democratic values.

Civil society organisations bring crucial capabilities governments often lack: the independence to ask difficult questions, the expertise to spot red flags in complex contracts and the persistence to follow money trails to politically sensitive destinations. Security encompasses more than troops and weapons – it includes building institutional resilience, defusing disinformation and strengthening democratic systems against attack, areas where civil society has much to contribute.

Effective oversight doesn’t mean revealing sensitive operational details or compromising security. It requires tracking financial flows, monitoring contractor performance and ensuring competitive bidding processes. Civil society groups have repeatedly demonstrated they can investigate defence spending without endangering national security.

Before the money starts flowing, NATO should establish a defence procurement transparency initiative that sets baseline standards for member states. This should include requirements for public disclosure of contract values and vendor selection criteria, covering procurement, exports, offset agreements and spending on AI, cyber capabilities and research and development. National parliaments must be empowered to scrutinise decisions, independent oversight bodies should be adequately resourced to follow the money and both should draw on civil society expertise.

Civil society needs to be protected and allowed access to monitor defence spending flows, and whistleblower protections for defence sector employees should be strengthened. As civil society organisations worldwide endure funding cuts, including because of the Trump administration’s evisceration of aid spending, any increase in defence spending mustn’t come at the cost of democracy and human rights.

NATO’s credibility, and ultimately its security, depends on reconciling human security with respect for democratic values. That will only be achieved if civil society is able to play its role.

Samuel King is a researcher with the Horizon Europe-funded research project ENSURED: Shaping Cooperation for a World in Transition at CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation, and Inés M. Pousadela is CIVICUS Senior Research Specialist, writer at CIVICUS Lens and co-author of the State of Civil Society Report.

For interviews or more information, please contact research@civicus.org

 

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 Yasmine Sherif
NEW YORK, Jul 14 2025 (IPS-Partners)

On the first International Day of Hope, we are all responsible to #KeepHopeAlive for the children impacted by the world’s most severe humanitarian crises. Perhaps the strongest responsibilities lie with those entrusted to lead the world and make the right moral and legal choices. This is especially so today, when we have led the world into an abyss of excruciating pain for nearly a quarter of a billion innocent children now suffering brutal conflicts and violence, forced displacement and punishing climate disasters – without quality education.

Now is the time for genuine empathy and profound maturity among all of us who were privileged to access quality education. We are all connected, and we are all responsible for the young generation. We must serve as role models and pave the way for a better future.

Our investment in their education is an investment in peace, an investment in sustainable development, an investment in economic prosperity, and an investment in the unique potential of the world’s children and youth. Just like we once enjoyed such investment or made such investment in our own children.

Our world is changing fast. Across the globe – in Gaza, eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ukraine, Sudan and beyond – children and adolescents have no access to education and are losing hope. To make matters worse, we have a compounding climate crisis directly impacting the education and lifelong trajectories of every girl and boy on Earth.

To keep hope alive, Education Cannot Wait (ECW) and our global strategic partners go full force together to make whatever difference we can make in the life of each child we meet, providing them with safe, quality education that brings them hope, builds self-reliance and an ability to survive and thrive with dignity.

As we actively embrace the UN80 Initiative, we all must work together, comply with the UN Charter and stand by the promises made in 1945. By working together, we can and must ensure that every child and adolescent calling for help to reclaim hope is heard. We cannot turn a deaf ear to their desperate cries.

By investing in their potentials and by recognizing their extraordinary resilience, quality education will change their lives and their entire world view. This is the time to #KeepHopeAlive and not turn away as their hopes crumble. They live through darkness. We must kindle their light.

 

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

Excerpt:

International Day of Hope Statement by Education Cannot Wait Executive Director Yasmine Sherif

By Simone Galimberti
KATHMANDU, Nepal, Jul 14 2025 (IPS)

The extensive plan of action adopted at the 4th International Conference on Financing for Development (FfD4), held recently in Sevilla, Spain (30 June – 3 July), triggers the question: Where will the money come from?

When I hear of mind-blogging figures of money needed to tackle the most daunting challenges humanity faces, I always ask myself how these resources will materialize.

Developing nations are saddled with debts whose serving is getting more and more onerous. Developed nations are entangled in a dangerous geopolitical downward spiral that is pushing them to invest enormous amounts in defense at the expense of global justice.

Meanwhile climate finance alone is going to be in the surround of trillions American dollars. In addition the recently World Bank published Global Economic Outlook provides another dismal forecast for the days to come.

“Global growth is slowing due to a substantial rise in trade barriers and the pervasive effects of an uncertain global policy environment. Growth is expected to weaken to 2.3 percent in 2025, with deceleration in most economies relative to last year. This would mark the slowest rate of global growth since 2008, aside from outright global recessions”.

This is the bedrock based on which the 4th International Conference on Financing for Development was recently held in Sevilla.

The final outcome of the Conference, the Sevilla Commitment is an extensive plan of actions with potentially groundbreaking measures that could truly support developing nations.

Yet as often happens with such documents, we should ask ourselves how this pledge will be upheld and implemented, especially the ones launched during the conference through the FFD4 Sevilla Platform for Action Initiatives.

The onus is going to be equally on both sides of the equation.

A Universal Peer Review to track the financial commitments of developed nations might be what is needed.

Will developed nations really be serious about raising their developed aid, mobilize the regional and international multilateral financial institutions that they control while being serious at finding ways to relieve developing nations of parts of their debts?

Even more crucially, with the stakes so high and the overall economic situation in such a distressful mode, will developed nations muster the courage to truly reform the international financial system?

On the other hand, will developed nations be committed and determined to root out corruption and malpractices in governance?

How will these nations be able to raise their taxation basis and undertake policy making actions transparently and inclusively?

The Sevilla Commitment does offer a broad framework to raise trillions of dollars to achieve the SDGs, including resources for climate and biodiversity actions.

This is an important aspect of the document that cannot go underestimated.

The document provides, at least in principle, a vision to do away, in matters of financing, with artificial and inefficient silos that the international aid system has created.

Paragraph 8 is key to this ambitious effort.

“National development efforts need to be supported by an enabling international economic environment and effective means of implementation that promote sustained, inclusive, and sustainable economic growth, and prevent external shocks from disproportionately affecting developing countries. We commit to align international support with national strategies, plans and frameworks, such as Integrated National Financing Frameworks (INFFs), and will respect each country’s policy space to pursue sustainable development while remaining consistent with relevant international rules and commitments”.

Annalisa Prizzon, an economist and Principal Research Fellow in the Development and Public Finance Programme at ODI, one of the most renowned development think tanks offered a clear insight.

“We should focus on “how much but also on how financing for development is delivered and reinvigorate the discussions on what makes cooperation for development effective”.

The International Commission of Experts on Financing for Development (FFD4) led by José Antonio Ocampo, a former Minister of Finance and Public Credit of Colombia that also included Prizzon, in its report released in February 2025, there is a proposal of creating a UN Global Economic Coordination Council.

The fact that the whole UN system is under immense pressure of restructuring itself in order to be more of value for money should not imply that it cannot still play an important role.

In a much different way, the UN should especially strengthen its convening and coordination powers among its members.

Yet I found it baffling that the whole text of the Sevilla Commitment does not contain any reference to the concept of “SDGs Stimulus” that have been championed for long by the UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres. Instead, it was less surprising that in Seville there was a lot of focus on the role of the private sector and blended capitals.

Now there is an overwhelming consensus that public financing cannot do the job alone and finding private resources, often by leveraging complex and abstruse financial mechanisms that only equity investors seem to comprehend, is seen as a must.

While it is certainly true that Multilateral Development Banks can be much more effective at increasing their landing capacities and also incentivizing the mobilization of private capitals, the biggest challenges faced by humanity cannot be tackled through shortcuts.

And centering the international finance for development on private capitals rather than public money in the forms of grants or concessional loans with minimal interests and a lot of flexibility on the receiving nations, developed countries are taking a very convenient route that helps them dodging their moral responsibilities.

At G7 held in Alberta, Canada, it was decided that American multinationals would be exempted from the global minimum taxation regime that was agreed in 2021.

While this decision might hit more the revenues of European governments where many American companies operate, it is a troubling signal. If big chunks of the international finance framework are outsourced and handed out to the private sector, then the international community is abdicating from its moral duties.

The same dynamics is also unfolding in matter of climate negotiations. In the recent held Bonn Climate Talks, officially the SB 62 held in the former capital of Western Germany (16 Jun – 26 Jun), even if financing was not a central topic on the official agenda, it was impossible avoid it.

Developed nations are pushing for a major role of private funding while also, quite correctly, demanding that nations like China and the Gulf Countries step up with new commitments.

In this context, developing nations must be more assertive with a “Show Me the Money” attitude when dealing with developed nations. The former might have some bargaining chips in the form of rare earth materials that the West is so desperately in need of.

Forums like the G20, where developing and developed nations come together, offer a platform to push for changes. There are also now plenty of serious proposals to change the status quo.

On the top of the Sevilla Commitment, the same International Commission of Experts on Finance for Development has come up with a holistic array of proposals that, with political will, can make the difference.

The same can be said with the recently launched “The Jubilee Report: A Blueprint for Tackling the Debt and Development Crises and Creating the Financial Foundations for a Sustainable People-Centered Global Economy”, an initiative of the Vatican based Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences and Columbia University’s Initiative for Policy Dialogue.

Yet even if the flow of development finance from the private sector is tempered and controlled and a new governance system is created, we need some new forms of accountability.

What about a Universal Peer Review, UPR for development finance that could be devised while re-thinking the Post 2030 Development Agenda?

Borrowing from the UPR model in place in the Human Rights Council, such an accountability system could be the only hope to pressurize developed nations to hold to their promises.

As the international community will soon start discussing what will happen to the Agenda 2030 and the SDGs, we need some strongest mechanisms to hold nations answerable to their pledges.

While this is itself far from being a perfect mechanism (after all there are is no way of punishing or sanctioning the not complying governments), sometimes some shame is what is needed to give a jolt and ensure rich nations walk the talk.

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

IPS UN Bureau

 

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