Africa

The UK Home Office was unable to process Julius Malema's application in time for his trip, the High Commission says.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IPS UN Bureau Report

 

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

By CIVICUS
May 7 2025 (IPS)

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

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

Samuel Worthington

How would you characterise the current state of US democracy?

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

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

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

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

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

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

How has USAID’s restructuring impacted on civil society?

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

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

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

What global implications are resulting from these domestic developments?

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

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

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

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

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

How are people responding to these challenges?

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

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

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

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

Do you see any hope for US democracy?

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

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

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

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

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

GET IN TOUCH
LinkedIn

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

 

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

The Commission on Population and Development (2024)

By Mary Kuira
NAIROBI, May 7 2025 (IPS)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Breaking the silence

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Combating anti-rights narratives

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Mary Kuira is Global DMEL Coordinator at Hivos East Africa

The four suspects – two Belgians, a Vietnamese and a Kenyan – were arrested last month with 5,000 ants.

After securing Olympic relay and World Indoor medals, South African sprint star Akani Simbine says he has "never given up on trying to be the best".

After securing Olympic relay and World Indoor medals, South African sprint star Akani Simbine says he has "never given up on trying to be the best".

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IPS UN Bureau Report

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But, overall, the picture is grim.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IPS UN Bureau

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IPS UN Bureau Report

 

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

A new people-smuggling route opens up crossing a lake into Kenya, but it is proving deadly for some Eritreans.

A new people-smuggling route opens up crossing a lake into Kenya, but it is proving deadly for some Eritreans.

A new people-smuggling route opens up crossing a lake into Kenya, but it is proving deadly for some Eritreans.

The army has repeatedly accused the Gulf nation of backing the RSF, something which the UAE denies.

The drones also hit the civilian section of Port Sudan's airport, a fuel depot and a major hotel.

Nice and Burundi defender Youssouf Ndayishimiye says he always hoped football would prove to be his route out of "unimaginable poverty".

Nice and Burundi defender Youssouf Ndayishimiye says he always hoped football would prove to be his route out of "unimaginable poverty".

The Catholic Church in Kenya says he is unwell in response to reports that he had not been invited.

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

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

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

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

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

 

Source: OECD.

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Source: OECD.

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Source: OECD.

 

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

 

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

People from Pakistan, Nigeria and Sri Lanka may find it more difficult to come to the UK, under new plans.