By External Source
Jan 19 2026 (IPS-Partners)
Once a lifeline of northern Bengal, Bangladesh’s Karatoya River now drifts through Bogura as a fragmented, polluted channel, where climate change and human neglect quietly reshape livelihoods, memory, and everyday life.
Flowing through the heart of Bogura, the Karatoya River bears the weight of a long, visible decline. Once one of northern Bengal’s major waterways, the river today appears narrowed, stagnant, and burdened with waste; its surface is calm, and its crisis is deeply rooted. This short documentary observes the Karatoya as both a physical landscape and a lived presence, shaped by climate stress, urban encroachment, pollution, and disrupted flow.
As dry seasons lengthen and rainfall grows erratic, the river’s natural ability to renew itself collapses. Farmers struggle to irrigate, former fishers lose their livelihoods, and urban communities live beside a river reduced to a drain and a health hazard. The film, utilizing quiet visuals and personal memories instead of statistics, contemplates the loss that occurs when a river gradually disappears from daily life.
Recent dredging efforts offer momentary relief, but the film asks a deeper question: can a river survive without collective care?
Biography of Directors
Md. Rowfel Ahammed (born 1997) and Md. Sadik Sarowar Sunam (born 2007) are emerging filmmakers from Bogura, Bangladesh. Rowfel is an MSS student in Sociology at Government Azizul Haque College with a strong interest in film, art, and photography. Sadik is a 12th Grade student at TMSS School and College, drawn to creative learning and new experiences. Both completed a Workshop on Documentary Filmmaking organized by the Bogura International Film Festival under the supervision of documentary filmmaker and photographer Mohammad Rakibul Hasan. Through this workshop, they made their first documentary film, “Karatoya” (2026), exploring environmental change and local stories from Bogura.
Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
Image: AI generated / shutterstock.com
By Jordan Ryan
Jan 19 2026 (IPS)
The Trump administration’s recent announcement of its withdrawal from 66 international organisations has been met with a mixture of alarm and applause. While the headline number suggests a dramatic retreat from the world stage, a closer look reveals a more nuanced, and perhaps more insidious, strategy. The move is less a wholesale abandonment of the United Nations system and more a targeted pruning of the multilateral vine, aimed at withering specific branches of global cooperation that the administration deems contrary to its interests. While the immediate financial impact may be less than feared, the long-term consequences for the UN and the rules-based international order are profound.
At first glance, the withdrawal appears to be a sweeping rejection of global engagement. The list of targeted entities is long and diverse, ranging from the well-known UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) to more obscure bodies like the International Lead and Zinc Study Group. However, as Eugene Chen has astutely observed, the reality is more complex. The vast majority of the UN-related entities on the list are not independent international organisations, but rather subsidiary bodies, funds, and programmes of the UN itself. The administration is not, for now, withdrawing from the UN Charter, but rather selectively defunding and disengaging from the parts of the UN system it finds objectionable.
This selective approach reveals a clear ideological agenda. The targeted entities are overwhelmingly focused on issues that the Trump administration has long disdained: climate change, sustainable development, gender equality, and human rights. The list includes the UN’s main development arm, the Department of Economic and Social Affairs; its primary gender entity, UN Women; and a host of bodies dedicated to peacebuilding and conflict prevention. The inclusion of the UN’s regional economic commissions, which play a vital role in promoting regional cooperation and development, is particularly telling. This is not simply a cost-cutting exercise; it is a deliberate attempt to dismantle the architecture of global cooperation in areas that do not align with the administration’s narrow, nationalist worldview.
The decision to remain a member of the UN’s specialised agencies, such as the World Health Organization (from which the administration has already announced its withdrawal in a separate action) and the International Atomic Energy Agency, is equally revealing. This is not a sign of a renewed commitment to multilateralism, but rather a cold, calculated decision based on a narrow definition of US national security interests. The administration has made it clear that it sees these agencies as useful tools to counter the influence of a rising China. This ‘à la carte’ approach to multilateralism, where the US picks and chooses which parts of the system to support based on its own geopolitical interests, is deeply corrosive to the principles of collective security and universal values that underpin the UN Charter.
What, then, should be done? The international community cannot afford to simply stand by and watch as the UN system is hollowed out from within. A concerted effort is needed to mitigate the damage and reaffirm the importance of multilateral cooperation.
First, other member states must step up to fill the financial and leadership void left by the United States. This will require not only increased financial contributions, but also a renewed political commitment to the UN’s work in the areas of sustainable development, climate action, and human rights. Second, civil society organisations and the academic community have a crucial role to play in monitoring the impact of the US withdrawal and advocating for the continued relevance of the affected UN entities. Finally, the UN itself must do a better job of communicating its value to a sceptical public. The organisation must move beyond bureaucratic jargon and technical reports to tell a compelling story about how its work makes a real difference in the lives of people around the world.
The Trump administration’s latest move is a stark reminder that the post-war international order can no longer be taken for granted. It is a call to action for all who believe in the power of multilateralism to address our shared global challenges. The UN may be a flawed and imperfect institution, but it remains our best hope for a more peaceful, prosperous, and sustainable world. We must not allow it to wither on the vine.
Related articles by this author:
Venezuela and the UN’s Proxy War Moment
The Danger of a Transactional Worldview
The Choice Is Still Clear: Renewing the UN Charter at 80
Jordan Ryan is a member of the Toda International Research Advisory Council (TIRAC) at the Toda Peace Institute, a Senior Consultant at the Folke Bernadotte Academy and former UN Assistant Secretary-General with extensive experience in international peacebuilding, human rights, and development policy. His work focuses on strengthening democratic institutions and international cooperation for peace and security. Ryan has led numerous initiatives to support civil society organisations and promote sustainable development across Africa, Asia, and the Middle East. He regularly advises international organisations and governments on crisis prevention and democratic governance.
This article was issued by the Toda Peace Institute and is being republished from the original with their permission.
IPS UN Bureau
Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
Without a classroom or facilities, our community teachers provide lessons to children engaged in domestic labour. Credit: UKBET
By Mohammed A. Sayem
SYLHET, Bangladesh, Jan 19 2026 (IPS)
While other children her age prepared for school, eight-year-old Tania once began her workday. Each morning, she picked up a jharu—the household broom—and cleaned floors inside a private home. At the same time, another child of her age in that household lifted a schoolbag and left for class. One carried a broom. The other carried books.
For years, this was Tania’s daily reality. And for thousands of children across Bangladesh, it still is.
Tania A, who has transitioned from child labour to mainstream school. Credit: UKBET
Domestic child labour remains one of the most hidden and least acknowledged forms of child exploitation. Driven by extreme poverty, children are sent to work inside private homes where their labour is largely invisible. They clean, cook, wash clothes, and care for younger children, often working long hours without rest, education, or protection. Deprived of school and play, they lose both childhood and future opportunities.Child rights organisations note that many domestic child workers face neglect, mistreatment, and abuse. Most cases go unreported because the work happens behind closed doors, beyond public scrutiny and accountability.
Despite clear legal safeguards, child labour persists. Bangladeshi law prohibits the employment of children under the age of 14 and limits work for those aged 15–17 to non-hazardous conditions. Yet an estimated 3.4 million children are engaged in illegal labour, and thousands of them work as domestic workers. Exact figures remain uncertain, as domestic labour is informal, unregulated, and largely hidden.
In the north-eastern city of Sylhet, UK Bangladesh Education Trust (UKBET), a UK-based international NGO, has developed a community-based intervention aimed at reaching these children. Through its Doorstep Learning Programme, UKBET trains and deploys community teachers to identify children involved in domestic labour and provide education at their places of work, with the consent of employers. Learning sessions may take place in a kitchen corner or shared courtyard—wherever space is available and permitted.
Alongside education, the programme addresses the economic drivers of child labour. Parents receive small livelihood grants to start or expand family businesses, reducing dependence on a child’s earnings. As household income stabilises, children are supported to transition into formal schooling or vocational training. Awareness sessions further promote child rights and discourage the recruitment of child domestic workers.
Today, UKBET operates in 21 of the 42 wards of Sylhet City. Even within this limited coverage, the need is substantial, with thousands of domestic child workers still waiting for attention and support.
Early evidence suggests the model works. An independent evaluation supported by Shahjalal University of Science and Technology found that 80% of enrolled children between programme inception and 2024 are continuing in school, 74% of family support businesses remain active, and no supported families have sent children back to work. Among girls receiving vocational training, nearly 69% are earning in safer employment. Interviews with employers also indicated they did not hire replacement child workers after children were withdrawn from domestic labour.
For Tania, the shift has been transformative. In January 2026, she enrolled in school. She no longer starts her day with a jharu in her hand. She now carries her own schoolbag. Her family has secured a stable source of income and no longer depends on the money she once earned.
Tania’s story illustrates what targeted, community-based interventions can achieve. But her experience is still not typical. Thousands of domestic child workers remain hidden inside private homes, excluded from education, and denied their rights.
Children like Tania do not need sympathy alone. They need visibility, opportunity, and sustained action. Their lives may be hidden—yet they must not remain invisible.
For further information about UKBET’s work with children engaged in domestic labour:
Mohammed A. Sayem
Director, UKBET – Education for Change
Email: msayem@ukbet-bd.org, Web: www.ukbet-bd.org
IPS UN Bureau
Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
By Jomo Kwame Sundaram
KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia, Jan 19 2026 (IPS)
After condemning pragmatic responses to the 1997-98 Asian financial crises, the West pursued similar policies in response to the 2008 global financial crisis without acknowledging its own mistakes.
Jomo Kwame Sundaram
Politicised exchange ratesUS exports could barely compete internationally, particularly with Germany and Japan. During his first term, Trump initially pursued a strong dollar policy, which undermined exports and encouraged imports.
The September 1985 ‘Plaza Accord’ among the G7 grouping of the world’s largest economies, held at New York’s Plaza Hotel, agreed that the Japanese yen and the Deutsche mark must both appreciate sharply against the US dollar.
The ‘strong yen’ period, or endaka in Japanese, ensued for a decade until mid-1995. This made Japanese imports less competitive, enabling the Reagan era boom.
By accelerating reunification with the East and the new euro currency, German Chancellor Helmut Kohl prevented the mark strengthening as much as the yen.
Thus, Germany avoided the Japanese catastrophe after its decades-long post-war miracle ended abruptly with the disastrous 1989 Big Bang financial reforms.
Liberalising capital flows
As the IMF urged national authorities to abandon capital controls, East Asians borrowed dollars, expecting to repay later on better terms.
Meanwhile, the dollar only stopped weakening after the US allowed Japan to reverse yen appreciation in mid-1995.
Under Managing Director Michel Camdessus, the IMF began pushing capital account liberalisation. This contradicted the intent of the Fund’s sixth Article of Agreement, affirming national authorities’ right to manage their capital accounts.
Despite considerable evidence to the contrary, Camdessus’ IMF preached the ostensible virtues of capital account liberalisation.
East Asian emerging financial markets were initially delighted by the significant capital inflows before mid-1997. After the strong yen decade, the US dollar appreciated from mid-1995.
When financial inflows reversed after mid-1997, some East Asian monetary authorities were unable to cope and turned to the IMF for emergency funding .
Many paths to crises
The Asian financial crisis is typically dated from 2 July 1997, when the Thai baht was ‘floated’ and its value quickly fell without central bank support. The ensuing panic quickly spread like contagion across national boundaries via financial markets.
Financial investors – in Bangkok, Singapore, Hong Kong, Tokyo, London and New York – hastily withdrew their funds, often mindlessly following perceived ‘market leaders’ without knowing why, like animal herds in panic.
Funds fled economies in the region, like frightened audiences in a dark theatre hearing a fire alarm. Capital even fled the Philippines, which had received little finance, because it was in Southeast Asia, the ‘wrong neighbourhood’.
After earlier celebrating Malaysia, Indonesia, and Thailand as ‘East Asian miracle’ economies, confidence in Southeast Asian investments fell suddenly.
Central banks in the region were sceptical of IMF prescriptions but believed they had little choice but to comply.
Press photographs showed Camdessus standing sternly, with arms folded like a displeased schoolmaster, over the Indonesian President bowing deeply to sign the IMF agreement.
This humiliating image probably expedited Soeharto’s shock resignation soon after, in mid-1998, over three decades after he seized power in a brutal military putsch in September 1965.
Following an earlier financial crisis, a 1989 Malaysian law had prohibited some risky banking and financial practices, but the authorities sought to attract foreign investments into its stock market.
Thailand had become vulnerable by allowing borrowers direct access to foreign banks through the Bangkok International Banking Facility and its provincial counterpart.
Debtors could thus bypass central bank regulation and supervision. The Thai currency float prompted massive funds outflows from the country.
As market confidence waned, funds fled Malaysia’s bourse, triggering a massive collapse in the currency’s value against the dollar, which had steadily weakened against the yen between 1985 and 1995.
Following massive capital outflows, Malaysia finally introduced capital controls on outflows from September 1998, fourteen months after the crisis began!
The controls enabled Malaysia to stabilise its currency and the economy temporarily, but also ended the earlier decade of accelerated industrialisation and growth.
Learning from experience
Rather than acknowledge and address the worsening problem due to earlier capital account liberalisation, the Fund made things worse with its prescriptions.
It insisted on keeping capital accounts open and raising interest rates to reverse outflows. This slowed economic growth as borrowing – and hence, both spending and investing – became more costly.
As investment and spending are necessary for economic growth, IMF prescriptions exacerbated the problems instead of providing a solution.
The East Asian financial crisis was undoubtedly avoidable. Experience has shown that financial markets and capital flows do not function as mainstream theories claim.
Thus, financial dogma and its influence on economic theory and policy obscured more realistic understanding of how markets actually operate and the ability to develop more pragmatic and appropriate policy alternatives.
History never fully repeats itself. But better policymaking for financial crisis avoidance and recovery will only emerge from more informed, historically grounded analysis.
IPS UN Bureau
Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau