Africa

Alice Wairimu Nderitu, United Nations Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide (UNOSAPG), speaks at the high level segment of the 10th Annual Symposium on the Role of Religion and Faith-based Organizations in International Affairs, accompanied by the moderators of the session, Rudelmar Bueno de Faria, ACT Alliance general secretary, and Simona Cruciani, Senior Political Affairs Officer, UN Office of the UNOSAPG.
 
The symposium, organized by the World Council of Churches (WCC) and a coalition of faith-based and UN partners, featured UN officials, representatives of international faith-based organizations, and other experts. 25 January 2024. Credit: Marcelo Schneider/WCC

By Azza Karam
NEW YORK, Jun 25 2024 (IPS)

In Part 1, I outlined how our shared existence is challenged not only by simultaneous crisis, but also by the notions – and realities – of perceived ‘holy wars’. I point out that ‘holy wars’ are not only perceptions within, or of, monotheistic faith traditions, but actually enacted by members of diverse belief systems.

I note how these ‘holy war’ dynamics are part of the vicious cycle of polarisation and sorrowful lack of social cohesion in most societies, while also coexisting with an increasing realisation amongst several decision-making entities (governmental, non-governmental and intergovernmental) of how important religions have been, and continue to be.

Religious institutions, religious leaders and religious (or faith based) organisations, are indeed the original social service providers, community mediators, social norm upholders and changemakers, and actually, historically, also the original human rights’ defenders.

I emphasize how the toxic mix with narrow political interests (might that be tautological?) means that in the minds of some who hold decision making positions, and/or have access to arms, and/or control laws and their implementation, and/or impact on beliefs, behaviours and attitudes through unparalleled pulpits (or all of the above), ‘holy war’, is justified.

In the age of ‘holy wars’, we are called upon to understand that part of our social disconnect resulting in the polarisation and significant weaking of our civil societies, may well be furthered by the manner in the current interest in and on religion.

Elsewhere I have argued that appreciating the ‘good’ powers of religious institutions and leaders, and the remarkable reach of religious social services and positive changemakers, is necessary, but by no means enough.

In fact, seeking to emphasize, support and identify the religious as the panacea, is harmful – in the same ways that marginalising the religious as evil, anti-human rights, unhealthy, misogynist, unnecessary, parochial, etc. has been, and remains, harmful, to the very same fabric of the civil societies we all uphold.

It is not all about good religion or bad religion. Rather, it could be about how to generate, nurture, protect, and yes, honour, civil societies.

Neither our governments (including even the elected ones), nor our religious institutions (including those which have survived centuries) nor our corporations (including those with the highest ranking of CSR and ESG) can, alone, change the dramatic junction of our collective human and planetary realities.

The late Wangari Mathai, a Kenyan woman environmental activist who won the Nobel Peace prize in 2004, demonstrated remarkable foresight when she highlighted the interconnectedness of our challenges, thus: “[I]n a few decades, the relationship between the environment, resources and conflict may seem almost as obvious as the connection we see today between human rights, democracy and peace.”

We need to begin to investigate what it will take to identify, understand, and activate, a poetics of solidarity. The Oxford Reference explains that “poetics are the general principles of poetry or of literature in general, or the theoretical study of these principles. As a body of theory, poetics is concerned with the distinctive features of poetry (or literature as a whole), with its languages, forms, genres, and modes of composition.”

If we use the term ‘poetics’ to refer to solidarity, not merely as an aspect of literature and/or theory, but as lived realities, what are the “languages, forms, genres and modes of existence” that this would entail? In the following paragraphs, I do not propose definitive answers. I merely share some thoughts to engender and provoke each of us, to reflect – and to engage.

A poetics of solidarity needs to have as a premise of its existence, an understanding that working ‘alone’ to solve the problems which impact all – whether as a lone multifaceted institution, the United Nations, corporation(s), religion/religious or multi-religious entity, secular NGO or umbrellas of NGOs, judicial actor(s) or bodies, cultural agents or entities, financial or military behemoths, etc., is clearly not enough.

We have landed here in these very challenging spaces and times, even as so many have laboured for so long in almost all domains of human existence, and even after many movements of solidarity succeeded in overcoming and righting and fighting the good fight. Yet, here we are.

A poetics of solidarity needs to hold accountable all our ways of thinking and doing, so far. I am not implying, by any means, that we have all failed. Rather, we all stand on the shoulders of many who have given their lives to make this a better world for all. We must acknowledge that loud and clear and take responsibility for what many are doing, and have done, that contributes to our shared existence.

This alone would be unlike many leaders who take office and make a point of undermining, or worst still, undoing, all that was done before them or by their predecessors. Or those who hold offices and invest so much in decrying, complaining, unravelling, and withering critiques of those trying to work alongside. Or those who claim to be part of a team, but cannot and will not support one another when things get tough.

A poetics of solidary demands that we put our money, and other resources, including activating our so-called values – where our mouths are. It is not good enough to speak about human rights, and/or the glory of our respective faiths and/or “interfaith peacemaking”, or even building edifices to such ‘co-existence’, when we do not contribute to the efforts of those who fight for these rights.

It is hard to justify killing, maiming, criminalising, imprisoning and in other ways, silencing, those who ask for their rights, and struggle for the rights of others. It is also hard to justify those who pretend to fight for the rights of others, when the going is good, and are silent or notably absent, when the going is tough.

What if, rather than undermine, constantly critique, systematically oppose, complain, or even just remaining silent (and hide behind claims that the particular issue at hand is not their business or endeavour), when we see our fellow humans give – what if we praise, give thanks, reach out to share a kind word, and better still, ask how we can help…? What if we give of the ‘little’ we have? Don’t all our faiths say that? You think this sounds too simple?

Did Einstein not say at some point something like the only difference between stupidity and genius, is that genius has its limits, and that everything should be made as simple as possible – but not simpler? Kindness, praise, and giving of what we value, to those we would normally not (want to) see or deign to appreciate, giving to those who speak and work and live differently – but aim for the collective good, is not simple. It is genius. Working together with those who may bear a different institutional flag, rather than seeking to create or consolidate your own, is also genius.

A poetics of solidarity may require us to acknowledge that solidarity is fundamentally about how we relate to one another, with kindness, empathy and willingness to serve – in words and deeds. But it is also to humbly realise that even as some of us try our best to relate and to “support”, “empower”, “engender”, or “enable”, we may well end up hurting one another, and/or even damage parts of our environment that some of us, including future generations, will need, to just survive.

When it comes to the poetics of solidarity in the age of ‘holy wars’, we cannot afford to now see anything ‘religious’ as a saviour, or the only source of our interrelated salvation. Nor can we afford to ignore the religious realms altogether, thinking we know our welfare best, or keep the religious at bay. Instead, we need to take responsibility for the fact that our faiths – including our faith in human rights – demand us to be accountable for ourselves, one another, and our planet.

What we need is a poetics of solidarity which does no harm – but this may well mean sacrificing something dear to us. We have lived – and still do – in an age where we think it is possible to have it all. Perhaps we may just have to come to terms with the fact that we each, and all, need to let go of something valuable to us – and to give, in service, instead.

All our institutions, groups, communities and our individual selves, bear a responsibility. Our long-established religious institutions, faith-based and interfaith initiatives in their mushrooming multitudes, need to be held accountable to what we give of our most valuable, to those who are not religious, those who come from different religions or religious organisations, and especially, to those who uphold all human rights for all peoples at all times.

Secular rights’ bearers and duty holders too, need to take responsibility for how we marginalise even as we ‘advocate’, how we maim as we seek to ‘protect’, and how we silence as we vocalise the ‘like-minded’. We speak of alliances and partnerships, but we walk, and work, in silos, seeking our own profit(s).

A poetics of solidarity may well be about cultivating and deliberately working alongside those we dislike, and giving the best of what we have, and of whom we are.

Professor Azza Karam is President and CEO of Lead Integrity; an affiliate with the Ansari Institute of Religion and Global Affairs at Notre Dame University; and a member of the UN Secretary General’s High Level Advisory Board on Effective Multilateralism.

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');  

Tidal waves on Namkhana Island flood a house Storms, heavy rainfall, and flood wreak havoc in this region of West Bengal. Credit: Supratim Bhattacharjee/Climate Visuals

By Alison Kentish
ANTIGUA & BARBUDA, Jun 25 2024 (IPS)

Germany’s State Secretary and Special Envoy on International Climate Action, Jennifer Morgan, has emphasized the need for urgent climate action and called on G20 nations to do more to curb greenhouse gas emissions.

The G20 comprises 19 developed and developing nations, the European Union and, since 2023, the African Union. It represents the world’s biggest economies, totaling 85 percent of the global GDP.

In an interview with IPS on the sidelines of the Fourth International Conference on Small Island Developing States (SIDS4), the former Greenpeace International Co-Director highlighted the crucial role of the G20 in combating climate change.

“Germany and, of course, the European Union are ready to continue to take the lead on phasing out fossil fuels and building on renewable energy, but we need the G20 to step it up,” she told IPS.

“At the end of the day, there will be things that we can adapt to. By the year 2030, we have to halve global emissions and for that, we are working hard within the G20 to get all these countries, including ours, to move forward very deliberately.”

Morgan spoke of the resilience-focused narrative of small island developing states, a theme woven throughout SIDS4.

Germany’s State Secretary and Special Envoy on International Climate Action, Jennifer Morgan. Credit: X

“How can countries be resilient to the extreme weather that’s coming, the hurricanes that are coming? How can we build up, for example, water systems? This is a key focus that Germany is working on and I heard a lot about it here, so that they’re resilient to saltwater coming into a system so that they’re resilient when a storm hits. That’s one area where we can move forward,” Morgan said.

Morgan has been vocal about the need for energy transition and for ramped-up investments in clean energy in developing economies. Last week, she highlighted the fact that while investment in clean energy will double that of fossil fuels in 2024, “investment must accelerate further, especially in emerging and developing economies, where two-thirds of the global population sees only 15 percent of this investment.”

“The gap needs to be closed,” she shared on the social media platform X.

Speaking to IPS, the climate envoy said the issue of finance will also factor greatly in how small island states adapt to a changing climate. She said SIDS leaders are unanimous in their calls for greater access to finance and the reform of the international financial system.

“Germany is working globally on a range of those issues to create a fit-for purpose finance system that also works for small island developing states,” she said.

“We are working hard to get the strategies of the Green Climate Fund for example, to have special windows for SIDS and also support for putting forward proposals that are much more accelerated and having 50% of finance globally go for adaptation and resilience, which is a big priority for SIDS. We are also helping to increase the funds coming to SIDS. SIDS receive funds. I can say from a German perspective that we’re active and also from the Green Climate Fund, but we need to continue to make it more efficient and faster and also make sure that it gets to people on the ground because people on the ground, who are living in their villages in their towns, know what’s best to be able to be more resilient to the impacts of climate change.”

Morgan describes Germany’s work with SIDS on cultural heritage digitization as both ‘heartbreaking and absolutely essential.’

“For countries that are very low lying, facing sea level rise and storms, people have to leave their villages and their cultural heritage is connected to those places. We’ve been working with Tuvalu and other countries to document, through artificial intelligence and digitization, the things that are most essential for them, ensuring that they are protected and not lost,” she said.

Morgan’s messages mirrored those of United Nations Secretary General Antonio Guterres and Antigua and Barbuda Prime Minister Gaston Browne. The UN Chief called on developed economies to fulfill their pledge to double adaptation financing by 2025, while Browne called on the global north to honor its USD 100 billion climate finance pledge and operationalize the loss and damage fund.

“Small island developing states have every right and reason to insist that developed economies fulfill their pledge to double adaptation financing by 2025 and we must hold them to this commitment as a bare minimum,” Guterres told the conference. Browne added that “these are important investments in humanity, justice and the equitable future of humanity.”

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');  

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');  

Credit: Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR)

By Azza Karam
NEW YORK, Jun 24 2024 (IPS)

“Holy War” is how the Patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church referred to the Russian war on the Ukraine, and indeed, on “the West”1 . “Holy War”, aka “jihad” is a foundational principle of “the Base” or “al-Qaeda”, which has grown into a non-state hydra with too many names and atrocities to list here (but if you are curious, one of the hydra faces is ISIS).

In a recent opinion piece published in Foreign Policy, columnist Caroline de Gruyter noted that “Israel and Palestine Are Now in a Religious War”, in her attempt to argue why the Middle East conflict has been getting increasingly brutal, and increasingly hard to solve.

The intersection between holiness and war is even more nuanced in Zvi Bar’el’s Opinion piece in Haaretz, when he notes that “the war in Gaza is no longer about revenge for the murder of 1,200 Israelis or the hostages.

If they all die, along with hundreds of more soldiers, the price would still be justified for the Jewish Jihad waging a war for Gaza’s resettlement” [emphasis added]. Hamas’ own name –the acronym for Harakat al-Muqawama al-Islamiya (Islamic Resistance Movement) – needs no elaboration. Neither does Lebanon’s Hizbullah (Party of God).

In India, a report by the Indian Citizens and Lawyers Initiative (in April of 2023), entitled “Routes of Wrath: Weaponising Religious Processions”, notes

Indian history is rife with instances of religious processions that led to communal strife, riots, inexcusable violence, arson, destruction of property and the tragic deaths of innocent residents of the riot-hit areas. There have been horrific riots and bloodletting caused by other factors too, most prominently the anti-Sikh pogrom of 1984 and the Gujarat pogrom of 2002, but no cause of interfaith riots has been as recurrent and widespread as the religious procession. This is as true of pre-Independence India as during the 75 years since we became a free nation…Post-Independence, we have faced numerous communal riots in diverse parts of India, under different political regimes, and the vast majority of these have been caused by the deliberate choice of communally-sensitive routes by processionists, and the pusillanimity of the Police in dealing with such demands, or even their collusion and connivance in licencing such routes.2

Already back in August of 1988, in an article entitled “Holy War Against India”, explicitly speaks of “Sikh terrorism” in the Punjab, noting that it “took about a thousand lives in 1987 and more than a thousand in the first five months of 1988.

If it continues at the present rate, Sikh terrorism in the Punjab will have cost more lives in two years than the IRA campaign in Northern Ireland has cost in twenty.” 3 Speaking of Northern Ireland, the marching season remains a flashpoint among Catholics and Protestants.

Politicised religion, or religionised politics – whence religious discourse is part of political verbiage, tactics, expedient alliances, sometimes informing foreign policy priorities, occasionally used to justify conflict – are not new phenomena. In fact, they may well be one of the oldest features of politics, governance – and warmaking.

The Crusades against Muslim expansion in the 11th century were recognized as a “holy war” or a bellum sacrum, by later writers in the 17th century. The early modern wars against the Ottoman Empire were seen as a seamless continuation of this conflict by contemporaries. Religion and politics are the oldest bedfellows known to humankind.

What is relatively new, is that after the 100-year war in Europe, and the subsequent moves towards secularisation or the so-called ‘separation of Church and State’ (again, really only in parts of Europe), provided a false sense of the dominance of secular governance in modern times.

Yet, even in the citadels of secular Western Europe, a relationship binding Church and State always existed, for the religious institutions and their affiliated social structures, remain critical social service providers – and humanitarian actors – till today. A reality now understood to be relevant in all parts of our world.

Nevertheless, what we are seeing today is a resurgence of religious politics, and the politics of religion, in almost all corners of the world. Before the Russian Orthodox Church proclaimed its “holy war” narrative, the reference to religion and politics almost always focused on Muslim-majority contexts, specifically on Iran, Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan.

Other realities would often go unnoticed, or somehow deemed as ‘odd’ or one-time phenomena – for instance the fact that the 2016 US elections delivered a Trump administration with full and public backing by a significant part of the Evangelical movement (many of whom are backing a potential comeback of him now); or the fact that related Evangelical counterparts backed Bolsenaro’s rise to power in Brazil; or the fact that religious arguments against abortion remain a key US electoral feature for decades; or the fact that a number of right-leaning anti-immigrant political discourses and blatant white supremacist politics have religious backing in parts of Europe and Latin America.

Was it perhaps that since these took place in ‘white’ and Christian-majority polities, somehow set these aside from being factored as part of the global resurgence of religious politics?

Whatever the case may be, it is time to smell that particularly strong brew of coffee, now. And as we do so, we are also obliged to note that it is no coincidence that this ‘brew’ is taking place at a time of remarkable social and political polarisation in many societies.

Indeed. we speak of multiple and simultaneous crisis (e.g. climate change, catastrophic governance, wars, famines, rampant inequalities, soaring human displacement, nuclear fears, systemic racism, rising multiple violence, drug wars, proliferation of arms and weapons, misogyny, etc.) and we also acknowledge the wilting multilateral influence to confront these. But as we acknowledge these, we must also recognise that social cohesion is a lasting and tragic victim.

Some governmental, non-governmental and intergovernmental entities have turned to religion(s) as a possible panacea. Religious leaders are being convened in multiple capitals (at significant cost) in almost all corners of the world.

Regularly touting the peacefulness and the unparalleled supremacy of their respective moral standpoints. Religious NGOs are being sought out, supported and partnered with more regularly to help address multiple crisis – especially humanitarian, educational, public health, sanitation, and child-focused efforts.

Interfaith initiatives are competing among each other, and with other secular ones, for grants from governments and philanthropists in the United States, Europe, Africa, many parts of Asia (with the notable exception of China), and the Middle East. Engaging, or partnering with religious entities is the new normal.

But just as the largely secular efforts we lived through (and some of us served for decades) in the 1960s to the 1990s, did not realise a brave new world, religious ones, on their own, cannot do so either. Especially not with the kind of historical baggage and contemporary narratives of holy war, we are living with now.

It is time we re-consider, re-engage and re-envision a poetics of solidarity rooted an abiding adherence to (and re-education about) all human rights for all peoples at all times. What would that entail?

1 https://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/88aug/obrien.htm
2 Connor O’Brian, https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/routes-of-wrath-report-2023-2-465217.pdf
3 Connor O’Brian, https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/routes-of-wrath-report-2023-2-465217.pdf

Part 2 follows.

Dr. Azza Karam is President and CEO of Lead Integrity; a Professor and Affiliate with the Ansari Institute of Religion and Global Affairs at Notre Dame University; and a member of the UN Secretary General’s High Level Advisory Board on Effective Multilateralism.

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');  

Empty large calibre bullet casings on the floor of a heavy machine gun position of the African Union Mission in Somalia (AMISOM) at Kismayo International Airport in southern Somalia. Credit: UN Photo/Ramadaan Mohamed

By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Jun 24 2024 (IPS)

Perhaps two of the biggest misnomers in military jargon are “small arms” and “light weapons” which are the primary weapons of death and destruction in ongoing civil wars and military conflicts, mostly in Asia, the Middle East and Africa.

In a statement last week, at the opening session of the Fourth Review Conference of the Programme of Action on Small Arms and Light Weapons (SALW), UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres was dead on target when he said there is nothing “small” or “ight” about the damage these weapons cause.

“Small arms and light weapons play a major role in these conflicts. Small arms are the leading cause of violent deaths globally, and are the weapon of choice in nearly half of all global homicides,” Guterres said.

The UN Programme of Action (UNPoA) on small arms and light weapons has an ambitious goal – to “prevent, combat, and eradicate the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons in all its aspects.” But it’s a tough assignment in a political world dominated by the gun lobby and the military-industrial complex.

During the weeklong meeting, scheduled to conclude June 28, diplomats from around the world will review its implementation — against the backdrop of a political agreement that originated back in 2001. Members of civil society are also on hand to present their analyses and lobby and inform governments.

Speaking on behalf of Guterres, UN Under-Secretary-General and High Representative for Disarmament Affairs Izumi Nakamitsu told delegates global military expenditures are on the rise.

And countries, regions and communities across the globe are suffering. New and protracted conflicts are placing millions of people in the line of fire.

“They aggravate crime, displacement and terrorism. From conflict zones to homes, they are used to threaten and perpetrate sexual and gender-based violence”.

According to the UN, “light weapons,” are primarily, weapons designed for use by two or three persons serving as a crew, although some may be carried and used by a single person.

They include, heavy machine guns, handheld under-barrel and mounted grenade launchers, portable anti-aircraft guns, portable anti-tank guns, recoilless rifles, portable launchers of antitank missile and rocket systems, portable launchers of anti-aircraft missile systems, and mortars of a calibre of less than 100 millimetres.

The current civil wars, where the choice of weapons is largely small arms and light weapons, are primarily in Afghanistan, Myanmar, the Central African Republic, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Haiti, Libya, Mali, Somalia, Sudan, South Sudan and Yemen—besides the two ongoing major wars in Ukraine and Gaza.

But in these two devastating conflicts, the Russians and Israelis are using more sophisticated weapons, including fighter aircraft, combat helicopters, drones, air-to-surface missiles, armoured personnel carriers and battle tanks, among others.

Dr. Natalie J. Goldring, who represents the Acronym Institute for Disarmament Diplomacy in her work at the United Nations on conventional weapons and arms trade issues, told IPS there are many obstacles to the full implementation of the UNPoA, both during the Review Conference and beyond. Two sets of these obstacles seem particularly noticeable at this year’s Review Conference.

The first set of obstacles is external.

In the end, the UNPoA is a political document, designed to be implemented primarily at the national level. States must have the political will to carry out the commitments in the UNPoA and the outcome documents of the various biennial meetings of states and review conferences, she said.

Smaller, less well-resourced States may also need financial assistance to be able to implement some portions of the UNPoA.

As a result, some smaller States are unwilling to accept programs and policies they fear will cost them money to implement, even with the potential availability of international assistance, Dr Goldring pointed out.

“The political challenge is complicated by the major roles played by the arms industry. Weapons manufacturers have financial incentives to sell as many weapons as they can. And States that supply weapons can be dependent on the power of those manufacturers. Some of these manufacturers are so intent on protecting their profits that they even attend, speak, and lobby at these conferences”.

The second key obstacle, she said, is internal.

“The Programme of Action process generally runs on a practice of “consensus”. In theory, that sounds laudable – why wouldn’t we want the process to be dominated by reaching consensus? But in this process, consensus is effectively defined as unanimity. That means that a single negative voice can block change – or progress”.

Because of the consensus process, she argued, these conferences and meetings often face an uncomfortable choice between two main options. One possibility is a strong outcome document, reached through votes, but lacking consensus. Another possibility is a weaker outcome document, reached through consensus.

“If it seems as though consensus is not going to be possible, then the supporters of the UNPoA could – and arguably should – construct an ambitious outcome document that would better fulfill the promise of the UNPoA and would require votes on some of the most controversial paragraphs. Arguably, the worst outcome would be for the proponents of a robust UNPoA to accept a lot of compromises on the text and still not reach consensus,” declared Dr Goldring

Guterres said small arms and light weapons aggravate crime, displacement and terrorism. From conflict zones to homes, they are used to threaten and perpetrate sexual and gender-based violence.

They block vital humanitarian aid from reaching the most vulnerable. They put the lives of United Nations peacekeeping forces and civilian personnel at risk.

And the situation is growing worse, as new developments in the manufacturing, technology and design of small arms — such as 3D printing — make their illegal production and trafficking easier than ever before, warned Guterres.

Rebecca Peters, Director, International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA), said in an oped piece in the UN Chronicle, that a thousand people die each day from gunshot wounds, and three times as many are left with severe injuries. If the death, injury and disability resulting from small arms were categorized as a disease, it would qualify as an epidemic.

Yet the media and popular perception tend to suggest that gun violence is simply an unavoidable consequence of human cruelty or deprivation, rather than a public health problem which can be prevented or at least reduced, she said.

“The circumstances of gun violence vary so enormously, it would be simplistic to suggest a single solution. A comprehensive approach, reflecting the multi-faceted nature of the problem, is needed to bring down the grim toll of global death and injury.”

Nonetheless, the high school massacres in the US, the armed gangs in Brazil or the systematic sexual violence in the Democratic Republic of the Congo all share a common denominator: the availability of guns (or small arms, as they are known in UN circles).

She said practical steps toward reducing the availability and misuse of small arms can be classified under four headings:

1. Reducing the existing stockpile
2. Reducing the supply of new weapons
3. Closing the gates between the legal and illegal markets
4. Reducing the motivation for acquiring guns (demand)

Elaborating further, Dr Goldring said the issue of whether or how to include ammunition in the UNPoA is a key example of the difficulty of reaching consensus. This has been the case since the initial negotiation of the UNPoA, when the United States and a few others States showed their willingness to block consensus over this issue. That fight continues at this meeting.

The President of the Review Conference, she said, is a remarkably able diplomat from Costa Rica, Permanent Representative Maritza Chan Valverde. If anyone can thread the needle on having a strong outcome document and reaching consensus at the same time, it’s likely to be Ambassador Chan. But it’s a herculean task.

“I greatly admire her skill and dedication, but I think that the chasm between the supporters of the UNPoA and the obstructionists may simply be too large.”

In discussing the outcome document of the September 2024 Summit of the Future, Ambassador Chan said, “The Pact for the Future cannot remain anchored in the language of the past. Consensus must be forged, not found. Ambition must prevail in the text, and the progress of the many cannot be hindered by the reservations of the few.”

That quote, Dr Goldring said, seems to suggest that she would be willing to have votes in order to avoid having the document be undermined by the obstructionists. But only time will tell.

In the early- to the mid-90s, the international trade in small arms and light weapons was a specialist topic within an extremely small community internationally, and was not on the international policy agenda in a significant way.

Because of the work of analysts and advocates to bring attention to this issue, subsequently accompanied by the work of dedicated diplomats at the UN and elsewhere, it is now an established part of international work to reduce the human costs of armed violence.

“Unfortunately, quantitative measures of the UNPoA’s effectiveness are difficult – if not impossible — to develop. Instead, we often measure outputs and activities, rather than outcomes. We simply don’t know the counterfactual – what the situation would have been without the UNPoA,” she declared.

Thalif Deen is a former Director, Foreign Military Markets at Defense Marketing Services; Senior Defense Analyst at Forecast International; and Military Editor Middle East/Africa at Jane’s Information Group.

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');  

Conservationists have found a way to restore a reef off one of Zanzibar's islands.

A German girl organises a big contribution to a South African charity tackling period-poverty issues.

World champions South Africa ease to a five-try victory against a spirited Wales side at Twickenham.

The 2025 Africa Cup of Nations will be held in December 2025 and January 2026, but the 2024 Women's Africa Cup of Nations will be in 2025.

Michael Usi replaces his mentor Saulos Chilima, who died in a plane crash earlier this month.

© UNICEF/Tess Ingram Parts of the city of Khan Younis are now almost unrecognizable after more than eight months of intense bombardment, UN officers report. Credit: UNICEF/Tess Ingram

By Norman Solomon
SAN FRANCISCO, Jun 21 2024 (IPS)

“When someone shows you who they are,” Maya Angelou said, “believe them the first time.” That should apply to foreign-policy elites who show you who they are, time after time.

Officials running the Pentagon and State Department have been in overdrive for more than 250 days in support of Israel’s ongoing slaughter of Palestinian civilians in Gaza. Supposedly dedicated to defense and diplomacy, those officials have worked to implement and disguise Washington’s war policies, which have taken more lives than any other government in this century.

Among the weapons of war, cluster munitions are especially horrific. That’s why 67 Democrats and an equal number of Republicans in the House of Representatives voted last week to prevent the U.S. government from continuing to send those weapons to armies overseas.

But more than twice as many House members voted the other way. They defeated a Pentagon funding amendment that would have prohibited the transfer of cluster munitions to other countries. The lawmakers ensured that the U.S. can keep supplying those weapons to the military forces of Ukraine and Israel.

As of now, 124 nations have signed onto a treaty banning cluster munitions, which often wreck the bodies of civilians. The “bomblets” from cluster munitions “are particularly attractive to children because they resemble a bell with a loop of ribbon at the end,” the Just Security organization explains.

But no member of Congress need worry that one of their own children might pick up such a bomblet someday, perhaps mistaking it for a toy, only to be instantly killed or maimed with shrapnel.

The Biden administration correctly responded to indications (later proven accurate) that Russia was using cluster munitions in Ukraine. On Feb. 28, 2022, White House spokeswoman Jen Psaki told journalists that if the reports of Russian use of those weapons turned out to be true, “it would potentially be a war crime.”

Back then, the front page of the New York Times described “internationally banned cluster munitions” as “a variety of weapons — rockets, bombs, missiles and artillery projectiles — that disperse lethal bomblets in midair over a wide area, hitting military targets and civilians alike.”

Days later, the Times reported that NATO officials “accused Russia of using cluster bombs in its invasion,” and the newspaper added that “anti-personnel cluster bombs . . . kill so indiscriminately they are banned under international law.”

But when the Ukrainian military forces ran low on ammunition last year, the U.S. administration decided to start shipping cluster munitions to them.

“All countries should condemn the use of these weapons under any circumstances,” Human Rights Watch has declared.

BBC correspondent John Simpson summed up a quarter-century ago: “Used against human beings, cluster bombs are some of the most savage weapons of modern warfare.”

As the Congressional Research Service (CRS) reported this spring, cluster munitions “disperse large numbers of submunitions imprecisely over an extended area.” They “frequently fail to detonate and are difficult to detect,” and “can remain explosive hazards for decades.”

The CRS report added: “Civilian casualties are primarily caused by munitions being fired into areas where soldiers and civilians are intermixed, inaccurate cluster munitions landing in populated areas, or civilians traversing areas where cluster munitions have been employed but failed to explode.”

The horrible immediate effects are just the beginning. “It’s been over five decades since the U.S. dropped cluster bombs on Laos, the most bombed country in the world per capita,” Human Rights Watch points out.

“The contamination from cluster munitions remnants and other unexploded ordnance is so vast that fewer than 10 percent of affected areas have been cleared. An estimated 80 million submunitions still pose a danger, especially to curious children.”

The members of Congress who just greenlighted more cluster munitions are dodging grisly realities. The basic approach is to proceed as though such human realities don’t matter if an ally is using those weapons (or if the United States uses them, as happened in Southeast Asia, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq and Yemen).

Overall, with carnage persisting in Gaza, it’s easy enough to say that Israel’s prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu has shown us who he is. But so has Presidente Biden, and so have the most powerful Republicans and Democrats in Congress.

While the U.S. has been supplying a large majority of the weapons and ammunition imported by Israel, a similar approach from official Washington (with ineffectual grumbling) has enabled Israel to lethally constrict food going into Gaza.

During his State of the Union address in early March, Biden announced plans for the U.S. to build a port on the Gaza coast to bring in food and other vital aid. But his speech didn’t mention the Pentagon’s expectation that such a seaport could take 60 days to become operational.

At the time, a Common Dreams headline summed up the hollowness of the gambit: “Biden Aid Port Plan Rebuked as ‘Pathetic’ PR Effort as Israel Starves Gazans.” Even at full tilt, the envisioned port would not come anywhere near compensating for Israel’s methodical blockage of aid trucks — by far the best way to get food to 2.2 million people facing starvation.

“We are talking about a population that is starving now,” said Ziad Issa, the head of humanitarian policy for ActionAid. “We have already seen children dying of hunger.”

An official at Save the Children offered a reality check: “Children in Gaza cannot wait to eat. They are already dying from malnutrition, and saving their lives is a matter of hours or days — not weeks.”

The Nation described “the tragic absurdity of Biden’s Gaza policies: the U.S. government is making elaborate plans to ameliorate a humanitarian catastrophe that would not exist without its own bombs.”

And this week — more than three months after the ballyhooed drumroll about plans for a port on the Gaza coast — news broke that the whole thing is a colossal failure even on its own terms.

“The $230 million temporary pier that the U.S. military built on short notice to rush humanitarian aid to Gaza has largely failed in its mission, aid organizations say, and will probably end operations weeks earlier than originally expected,” the New York Times reported on June 18. “In the month since it was attached to the shoreline, the pier has been in service only about 10 days. The rest of the time, it was being repaired after rough seas broke it apart, detached to avoid further damage or paused because of security concerns.”

As Israel’s crucial military patron, the U.S. government could insist on an end to the continual massacre of civilians in Gaza and demand a complete halt to interference with aid deliveries. Instead, Israel continues to inflict “unconscionable death and suffering” while mass starvation is closing in.

Maya Angelou’s advice certainly applies. When the president and a big congressional majority show that they are willing accomplices to mass murder, believe them.

It’s fitting that Angelou, a renowned poet and writer, gave her voice to words from Rachel Corrie, who was crushed to death one day in 2003 while standing in front of an Israeli army bulldozer as it moved to demolish a Palestinian family’s home in Gaza.

A few years after Corrie died, Angelou recorded a video while reading from an email that the young activist sent: “We are all born and someday we’ll all die. Most likely to some degree alone. What if our aloneness isn’t a tragedy? What if our aloneness is what allows us to speak the truth without being afraid? What if our aloneness is what allows us to adventure — to experience the world as a dynamic presence — as a changeable, interactive thing?”

Norman Solomon is the national director of RootsAction.org and executive director of the Institute for Public Accuracy. He is the author of many books including War Made Easy. His latest book, ‘War Made Invisible: How America Hides the Human Toll of Its Military Machine‘, was published in 2023 by The New Press.

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');  

Jane Salanda holding some sorghum, the only crop that survived the drought.

By Simplex Chithyola Banda
LILONGWE, Malawi, Jun 21 2024 (IPS)

After El Niño-induced floods and devastating drought, roughly two in five people in Malawi – a country of some 20 million people – are now facing the looming prospect of acute hunger by the end of the year.

At particular risk is the progress Malawi has made to improve maternal and infant nutrition, especially during the critical window of a child’s first 1,000 days.

Yet, facing similar challenges in the past, I have seen with my own eyes how international development aid can uplift and build the resilience of even the most vulnerable communities.

Concessional finance from the World Bank’s International Development Association (IDA), for instance, has previously helped millions of Malawians access food, improve nutrition, and rebuild agricultural livelihoods in the aftermath of shocks. With its focus on addressing the most urgent long- and short-term challenges, the IDA is one of the greatest allies of low-income, climate-vulnerable countries.

However, conditions not of our own making are exacerbating the hunger challenges in Malawi and across the African continent, while simultaneously holding back governments from responding effectively.

Malawi’s external debt servicing alone, for example, will take up an estimated US$ 147 million this year, just over five percent of total government spending. This is money that would better serve the country in the long run as investments into building the resilience of smallholder farmers to safeguard food and income security against rising climate shocks.

In light of these compounding challenges, we urgently need donor governments to double their contributions to the IDA in its upcoming replenishment, without which countries like Malawi will simply lack the resources to break the cycle of crises.

Food systems in the countries receiving support from the IDA, where infrastructure and national resilience is already precarious, have been more acutely affected by recent shocks than elsewhere.

We already know that one in three IDA nations are now poorer than before the Covid-19 pandemic, while the cost of recent climate disasters has doubled over the past decade, and will continue to rise. These shocks are devastating setbacks to attempts to develop long-term resilience and foster agricultural development for food and nutrition security and rural livelihoods.

Yet, just as these countries are facing arguably greater challenges than ever before, the amount of funding provided via the IDA has stalled – and in some cases, begun to decline.

For almost a decade, contributions to the IDA have flatlined, which means financial support from the wealthiest countries in real terms has fallen as many countries have cut aid budgets.

And the results of this downturn in funding are now playing out on the ground. Over the past two replenishment cycles, for example, the number of food insecure people in IDA countries has doubled – a clear sign that donor countries must rapidly reverse course to save lives and economies worldwide.

In the face of mounting challenges, the IDA can still be a driver for positive change in many of the world’s most vulnerable contexts, but only with the enhanced support of the foremost donor countries.

Momentum for tackling the hunger crisis – which ultimately spans borders, cultures, and economies – is already growing, with the formation of a Global Alliance Against Hunger and Poverty ahead of the G20 meetings in Brazil this year.

Donor governments must now make up ground, rising to the scale and urgency of the food security challenge ahead of us by doubling their funding for one of the most potent solutions against hunger and poverty.

The IDA is one of the most proven and effective aid providers the world possesses today and will be vital in delivering the vision of a hunger- and poverty-free world.

With greater funding, the IDA can support the long-term investments needed to strengthen national food systems, while also breaking the cycle of crises that currently hold back the most vulnerable nations.

At the same time, adequately replenishing the IDA will be critical in achieving both the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and the World Bank’s own mission to end poverty – both of which rely on sustainable agricultural development that allows for healthy people and planet.

Therefore, as the IDA meets in Nepal, Malawi and other IDA countries urgently need donor governments to step up both financially and strategically, directing more funding towards nutrition and food security.

The return on this investment is a world with less hunger, poverty and inequality, the toll of which is ultimately borne by all of us.

Hon. Simplex Chithyola Banda is Minister of Finance & Economic Affairs, Malawi

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');  

Results of the General Assembly's vote on the resolution on the status of the Observer State of Palestine. Credit: UN Photo/Manuel Elías

By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Jun 21 2024 (IPS)

The United States—which has continued to use its veto power to block Palestine from UN membership —may be out-maneuvered by a growing new campaign by some UN member states planning to establish full political and diplomatic relations with Palestine outside the confines of the United Nations.

The latest recognitions of the Palestinian territory as a sovereign State are by Norway, Ireland, Spain and Slovenia, which comes after the General Assembly overwhelmingly voted — with 143 votes in favour to nine votes against- – to back Palestine’s bid to become a full-fledged member of the United Nations on last month.

But, as expected, the resolution before the Security Council was vetoed by the United States last month—and will continue to be vetoed.

Mercifully, the US does not have a veto power to prevent countries from recognizing Palestine as a sovereign nation state — even though it could threaten to cut off economic and military aid, particularly to developing nations.

“In the midst of a war, with tens of thousands killed and injured, we must keep alive the only alternative that offers a political solution for Israelis and Palestinians alike: Two states, living side by side, in peace and security,” Norway’s Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre said.

How many of the remaining 24 European Union (EU) member states will follow Ireland, Spain and Slovenia in establishing diplomatic relations with Palestine?

The 24 include: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia and Sweden.

Stephen Zunes, Professor of Politics and chair of Middle Eastern Studies at the University of San Francisco, told IPS this underscores how, despite the Biden administration’s claims that it supports a two-state solution, it has worked hard to prevent the United Nations from recognizing Palestine.

In addition to vetoing the recent UN Security Council resolution admitted Palestine as a member and voting against the General Assembly resolution to upgrade its status, the United States was one of only two countries in the 47-member UN Human Rights Council to vote against a resolution in early April which “reaffirmed its support for the solution of two States, Palestine and Israel, living side by side in peace and security.”

“It has been U.S. policy since 1990 to withdraw funding from any United Nations agency which grants Palestine full member status and the recently passed 2024 Appropriations bill promises to cut all U.S. funding for the Palestinian Authority if “the Palestinians obtain the same standing as member states or full membership as a state in the United Nations or any specialized agency thereof outside an agreement negotiated between Israel and the Palestinians,” he pointed out

The Biden administration and Congress have long taken the position that Palestinian statehood is only acceptable on terms voluntarily agreed to by Israel in bilateral negotiations.

“However, given how there have been no such negotiations since 2015 and the Israeli government categorically rules out allowing any kind of Palestinian state, this appears to simply be a way of continuing to deny Palestine’s right to self-determination”, declared Zunes.

Among the G20, nine countries Argentina, Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa and Turkey have recognized Palestine as a sovereign state.

China, one of the five permanent members of the Security Council has recognized the State of Palestine since 1988 and has declared that it supports Palestine’s bid for full UN membership.

Meanwhile, in a statement released June 3, a group of UN human rights experts say, “the State of Palestine was recognized by the vast majority of Member States of the United Nations”.

All States must follow the example of the 143 UN Member States, and recognise the State of Palestine, and use all political and diplomatic resources at their disposal to bring about an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, the UN experts said.

“This recognition is an important acknowledgement of the rights of the Palestinian people and their struggles and suffering towards freedom and independence,” the experts said.

They insisted that Palestine must be able to enjoy full self-determination, including the ability to exist, determine their destiny and develop freely as a people with safety and security.
.
“This is a pre-condition for lasting peace in Palestine and the entire Middle East – beginning with the immediate declaration of a ceasefire in Gaza and no further military incursions into Rafah,” the experts said.

Meanwhile, Sri Lanka, a former chairman of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), was one of the first countries to establish diplomatic relations with Palestine going back to the 1970s.

Dr Palitha Kohona, former Permanent Representative of Sri Lanka to the UN, and until recently Ambassador to China, told IPS Sri Lanka has consistently backed the two-state solution to the situation involving Israel and Palestine and to bring peace to the Middle East.

Despite the elimination of the anti-Israeli leaders of Iraq (Saddam Hussein) and Libya (Muammar Gaddafi), the violent changes resulting from the Arab Spring, and the diplomatic efforts at reconciliation between Arab countries and Israel, the situation in the occupied territories remains as dire as ever, he said.

“Consistent with our position”, he pointed out, “Sri Lanka was one of the first countries to establish diplomatic relations with Palestine with a Palestinian ambassador based in Colombo since 1975 whose costs are met by the Government of Sri Lanka”.

Sri Lanka maintains a diplomatic presence in Ramallah with a fully- fledged ambassador, and is also the chair of the “UN Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices affecting the Human Rights of the Population of the Occupied Territories”,

“During my period as Permanent Representative, we came under intense pressure from Israel to quit as chair of this Committee. Sri Lanka has consistently supported the call for Palestinian statehood at the United Nations,” declared Dr Kohona.

Ian Williams, President of the Foreign Press Association, told IPS the Coalition of the Appalled that supports Palestinian membership is more compelling than the US’s Coalition of “the willing” that the US dragooned to support its war in Iraq.

A vote on “recognizing” Palestine is as superfluous as a vote on accepting the gravity – it exists! It should be superfluous to counter the arguments of Israel and its supporters but en passant Israel itself has not had accepted boundaries since its admission.

Micronesia, the Marshalls and Palau, consistent supporters of Israel and the US have no real sovereignty over their foreign policy, while the US and UK fought hard to maintain “Kampuchean” membership of the UN when Pol Pot controlled a tent in Thailand across the border, said Williams, a former president of the UN Correspondents Association (UNCA) and author of “The UN For Beginners”.

“And many of the Governments who took part in the wartime negotiations on the UN Charter were in exile from their occupied territory. This is not about legal recognition, it is about Palestine, as the ghost of the Naqba, sitting at the table shaking its hoary locks at the Zionist murderers and their accomplices”.

Maybe other members should resolve to refuse recognition to the Israeli holders of positions that swell Gilad Erdan’s head – like the various vice presidencies and committees or assumed membership of the West European Group that Erdan is so proud of. Time to tweak the desert vulture’s feathers, declared Williams.

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 deadly attack in the north has snowballed into speculation soldiers tried to usurp Capt Traoré.

By Yasmine Sherif
NEW YORK, Jun 20 2024 (IPS-Partners)

On World Refugee Day, we must stand in solidarity with the 120 million forcibly displaced people – including 43 million refugees worldwide – who have lost their homes and their human rights as the result of persecution and conflict.

As we unite with partners across the UN system, donors, the private sector and member states, we cannot forget the power of education to protect and safeguard the futures of the world’s most vulnerable children. These are children uprooted from their homes, their schools and their country, often ending up outside the public school system.

Our world is bleeding from inhumane and brutal armed conflicts. The most recent statistics from our partner UNHCR indicate the number of forcibly displaced people worldwide increased by 8% between 2022 and 2023, continuing a series of year-on-year increases over the last 12 years. In the State of Palestine alone, 6 million refugees are under UNRWA’s mandate. The world at large is facing the largest number of refugees since World War II.

Low- and middle-income countries are affected the most, with 75% of the world’s refugees and other people in need of international protection.

The dispossession, the uprooting, the suffering stemming from human rights abuses has become the new ‘normal’ for these forcibly displaced populations. Their lives and development demand a turn-around from the abnormal to real normalcy. Living at home and attending a public school is every child’s right and necessity.

On my recent visit to Chad, I saw firsthand the hollow eyes and fears in the eyes of young children fleeing from Darfur in Sudan to Chad. I saw firsthand how UNHCR and other aid organizations stayed with them day-and-night to provide a sense of safety and basic necessities. I saw how the power of education to insulate children from the horrors of conflict and forced displacement indeed is possible.

ECW has provided US$10 million to date in response to the Sudan regional refugee crisis, with First Emergency Response grants in the Central Africa Republic, Chad, Egypt, Ethiopia, and South Sudan. In Sudan itself, 18 million children are out of school, and we must urgently ramp up global funding to address what is fast becoming the world’s worst humanitarian crisis.

The humanitarian crisis in Venezuela has become one of the largest international displacement crises in the world with 8 million Venezuelans displaced globally, according to UNHCR. In neighboring countries including Colombia, Ecuador and Peru, ECW has provided catalytic funding for Multi-Year Resilience Programmes that are having a tangible impact on the lives of millions.

There is a human face to these stories of transformation. For forcibly displaced children like Shaimaa in Sudan, Darya in Moldova, Josveglys in Colombia and Jannat in Bangladesh, our investment in education is our investment in human life, in human rights, peace and security.

The best step we can take is not to simply race from one emergency to another. We must build the systems, policies and infrastructure needed to ensure development depth and sustainability. By translating our response through humanitarian-development joint programming, we can respond with both speed and depth. This requires financing.

On World Refugee Day, step up to #ShareTheirVoices as we stand in solidarity #WithRefugees everywhere. More so, let’s step up to end all the conflicts that force them to flee. Let’s step up and finance their right to an inclusive and continued quality education. Let’s empower them to use their resilience and, one day, lead.

 

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:

World Refugee Day Statement by Education Cannot Wait Executive Director Yasmine Sherif

We need help illuminating the dark matter in food and charting the intricate interplay between food, ecosystems, climate and health, argue the authors. Credit: Shutterstock.

By Maya Rajasekharan and Selena Ahmed
Jun 20 2024 (IPS)

This year, bee pollen has become a trendy superfood thanks to a wide range of potential benefits. Last year, sea moss led the superfood trends. Before that, it was turmeric.

Invariably, these newly celebrated superfoods are never new; they have long been consumed by non-Western cultures. The inadequate research on their nutritional composition and health attributes almost always leads to a list of exaggerated benefits, from preventing cancer to overall vitality and longevity. They become a fad for a few years and then often take a back seat to the next “superfood.”

Globally, half of all calories come from some form of wheat, rice or corn even though over 30,000 named edible species exist on our planet.

An estimated 95% of the biomolecules in food are unknown to science — this is the “dark matter” of food, diets and biodiversity. We don't know what these biomolecules are, or how they function in ecosystems and in our bodies

Yet the frequent emergence of trending superfoods demonstrate that food biodiversity persists in many communities and regions around the globe. In a recent publication in Nature Food, we joined 54 colleagues in beginning to capture and prioritize this diversity, with a curated list of 1,650 foods.

Strikingly, more than 1,000 of the foods on the curated food list are not included in national food composition databases — in other words, we don’t have easy access to what is in these foods, or science may not yet know what these foods contain. This suggests that dietary guidelines relying on national food composition databases miss the majority of humanity’s long and co-evolutionary history with food.

Moreover, even the foods that are commonly consumed and included in national food composition databases are barely understood. An estimated 95% of the biomolecules in food are unknown to science — this is the “dark matter” of food, diets and biodiversity. We don’t know what these biomolecules are, or how they function in ecosystems and in our bodies.

Mapping this dark matter is too large a task for any one laboratory, organization or country to achieve on its own. We need a united scientific movement, larger than the human genome project, with governments and researchers around the globe filling the gaps in our knowledge of the food we eat.

A suite of standardized tools, data and training is now available for this effort, which can build a centralized database based on standardized tools for researchers, practitioners and communities to share their wisdom and expertise on food and its diverse attributes to inform solutions to our pressing societal challenges.

Preliminary data from the first 500 foods analyzed reveals that many “whole foods” can be considered “superfoods,” with more unique than common biomolecules. Each fruit and vegetable, for example, has a unique composition of biomolecules that varies based on the environment, processing and preparation.

Broccoli, which achieved “superfood” status several years ago for its antioxidants and its connections to gut health, has over 900 biomolecules not found in other green vegetables.

We have identified the existence of these compounds through mass-spectrometry, but we have not determined the properties of these unique metabolites — we do not even have enough data to accurately name them, much less understand the roles that they play in our bodies and in ecosystems in the world at large.

And these 900+ biomolecules — broccoli’s dark matter — are in addition to the biomolecules that broccoli shares with other cruciferous vegetables, which may help prevent a wide variety of illnesses, from colon and other cancers to vascular disease.

Diet-related diseases such as diabetes, some cancers and heart disease are now the main cause of mortality globally. Yet the full scope of the links between diet and disease, soil microbes and gut microbes, climate change and nutrient content still remains shrouded in uncertainty.

Regulatory bodies are calling for more science to guide policy decisions even as scientists are finding new connections between diet and health for conditions as varied as macular degeneration and blood coagulation disorders.

The 20th century witnessed the simplification of agriculture, resulting in a narrow focus on yield and efficiency of a handful of cereal crops. Its successes were considerable, but they came at the expense of diversity, food quality and agricultural resilience. The superfoods — the trends, not the actual foods — are the collective poster child of this problem.

Now food systems are at a crossroads. The 21st century can become the century of diversity, as the new cornerstone of science on food. But we need help illuminating the dark matter in food and charting the intricate interplay between food, ecosystems, climate and health.

As we call for a globally coordinated effort to fill the gaps in the food we eat, we need to ensure these efforts do not create scientific disparities between countries and regions.

We need capacity-strengthening efforts so that all countries can equally and inclusively participate and benefit from the knowledge of what is in our food, how it varies, and implications for the health of people and the planet.

It is not enough to borrow superfoods from non-Westernized cultures and give them nothing in return. Today, it is time to start opening the black box of food and create more nourishing food systems for everyone.

 

Selena Ahmed is Professor at Montana State University and Global Director of Periodic Table of Food Initiative (PTFI) at the American Heart Association

Maya Rajasekharan is PTFI Director of Strategy Integration and Engagement at Alliance of Bioversity International and CIAT

 

The escalation of violence and multiple crises worsen Haiti's acute food insecurity. Credit: Justine Texier / FAO

By Mario Lubetkin
SANTIAGO, Jun 20 2024 (IPS)

Although the most recent evidence shows signs of improvement in food insecurity in Latin America and the Caribbean, the data reveal a worrying upward trend in Haiti and sectors of the subregion.

The situation in Haiti is particularly alarming: violence, a prolonged economic crisis, and extreme weather events have brought the country to a critical point with devastating consequences for its population. A further deterioration in acute food insecurity is projected between June and October 2024.

Haiti is the only country in the region that is considered to be in a major protracted food crisis, is one of nine countries in the world at risk of famine and is among the five countries with more than 10% of the population in emergency.

Haiti is the only country in the region that is considered to be in a major protracted food crisis, is one of nine countries in the world at risk of famine and is among the five countries with more than 10% of the population in emergency

This translates into 1.6 million people with food consumption shortfalls, reflected in very high acute malnutrition and excess mortality that they can only mitigate through emergency livelihood strategies and liquidation of their assets. On the other hand, almost half of the population, about 5.5 million, could face high levels of acute food insecurity.

El Niño caused crop failures in 2023, and this year, forecasts warn of more intense hurricanes due to La Niña, which could cause flooding and landslides, causing additional damage to crops, livelihoods, and infrastructure.

The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), committed to supporting Haiti, is working intensively to mitigate the impacts of the humanitarian crisis through emergency agricultural assistance, strengthening livelihood resilience and specialized technical assistance while ensuring the nexus between humanitarian response, resilience, and development. FAO estimated it would require $42.6 million to assist 528,000 people, but it has received only 6% of the funding.

In 2023, FAO reached some 120,000 people across Haiti through emergency agricultural and livestock interventions to support local food production and sustain rural livelihoods. In 2024, FAO continued to provide emergency assistance in Haiti, focusing on food security and agricultural resilience amid global challenges, assisting 44,000 beneficiaries in various country departments.

In the face of increasing violence and food crises, the FAO calls on donors and governments to increase their support. Ten million dollars are needed to assist 80,000 people, ensuring the protection of their livelihoods, covering minimum food needs, and improving the availability and access to food for the most vulnerable households.

FAO appreciates the efforts of local authorities to stabilize the country through the appointment of Garry Conille as interim Prime Minister. We are confident that steps such as these will help Haiti embark on a normalization path, which could also improve food security for all its inhabitants.

The food insecurity situation in Haiti requires urgent and coordinated action. A rapid, effective response and the mobilization of the necessary resources will mitigate the impact of this crisis, support the vulnerable population, and help Haiti regain its path to food security and stability. Humanitarian aid must reach those who need it most. Only in this way can we ensure a better life for all, leaving no one behind.

Excerpt:

Mario Lubetkin is FAO Assistant Director-General and FAO Regional Representative for Latin America and the Caribbean 

A Himalayan settlement in the Everest region of Nepal. The impact of climate change is more intense in the mountain region than in others. Photo: Tanka Dhakal/IPS

By Tanka Dhakal
KATHMANDU, Jun 20 2024 (IPS)

The global public opinion research on climate change reveals that 80 percent, or four out of five, of people globally want their governments to take stronger action to tackle the climate crisis.

According to the Peoples’ Climate Vote 2024 (PCV2024), 86 percent want to see their countries set aside geopolitical differences and work together on climate change.

The UN Development Programme (UNDP) collaborated with the University of Oxford in the UK and GeoPoll on the study, which involved asking 15 questions about climate change to more than 75,000 people in 77 countries who spoke 87 different languages. The report released today (Thursday, June 20, 2024) claims to be the biggest ever standalone public opinion survey on climate change and questions were designed to help understand how people are experiencing the impacts of climate change and how they want world leaders to respond. The 77 countries polled represent 87 percent of the global population.

“The People’s Climate Vote is loud and clear. They want their leaders to transcend their differences, to act now and to act boldly to fight the climate crisis,” said UNDP Administrator Achim Steiner. “The survey results—unprecedented in their coverage—reveal a level of consensus that is truly astonishing. We urge leaders and policymakers to take note, especially as countries develop their next round of climate action pledges, or ‘nationally determined contributions’ under the Paris Agreement. This is an issue that almost everyone, everywhere, can agree on.”

Map showing public support for stronger country climate commitments. Source: Peoples’ Climate Vote 2024

Globally, climate change is on people’s mind

Regardless of differences, people across the world reported that climate change was on their minds. According to the report, globally, 56 percent said they were thinking about it regularly (daily or weekly), and some 63 percent of those in Least Developed Countries (LDCs), who are on the frontlines of the climate change impact, are waiting for external support to adapt and mitigate.

The report shows worry around climate change is growing; 53 percent, or more than half, of people globally said they were more worried than last year about climate change. Again, worry is higher in Least Developed Countries (LDCs), where 59 percent of people experience climate change-related fear. On average, across the nine Small Island Developing States (SIDS) surveyed, as many as 71 percent said they were more worried than last year about climate change.

Climate change has an impact on people’s major decisions. According to the report, 69 percent of people worldwide said that climate change was having an impact on their major decisions, like where to live or work. The proportion so affected was higher in LDCs at 74 percent but notably lower in Western and Northern Europe at 52 percent and Northern America at 42 percent.

People are in favor of fossil fuel phaseout

The survey results also show overwhelming support for a faster transition away from fossil fuels. For a few years now, whenever leaders meet for climate summits, their major disagreement is the phaseout of fossil fuels, but people are not only calling for bolder climate action; they also want a transition to “green energy.”

The survey shows support by a global majority of 72 percent in favor of a quick transition away from fossil fuels. This is true for countries among the top 10 biggest producers of oil, coal, or gas, including majorities of 89 percent in Nigeria and Türkiye, 80 percent in China, 76 percent in Germany, 75 percent of people in Saudi Arabia, 69 percent in Australia, and 54 percent of people in the United States. Only 7 percent of people globally said their country should not transition at all.

People are in support for stronger climate action in 20 of the world’s biggest greenhouse gas emitters, with majorities ranging from 66 percent of people in the United States and Russia, to 67 percent in Germany, 73 percent in China, 77 percent in South Africa and India, 85 percent in Brazil, 88 percent in Iran and up to 93 percent in Italy.

Australia, Canada, France, Germany and the United States—in these five big emitters, women were more in favor of strengthening their country’s commitments by 10 to 17 percentage points. This gap was biggest in Germany, where women were 17 percentage points more likely than men to want more climate action (75 percent vs. 58 percent).

Additionally, a majority of people in every country surveyed said rich countries should give more help to poorer countries to address climate change. The poorest countries—those most immediately in need of international support to address climate change—were more likely to be in favor of rich countries giving more help to poorer countries—by upwards of 30 percent—than the world’s wealthiest countries—94 percent in Bhutan and 64 percent in the United States of America. Globally, around eight in ten people said they wanted rich countries to give more support to poorer countries.

Support for climate change education in schools

The survey results showed that people want climate change-related courses in schools; four in five people or 80 percent globally, called for schools in their country to teach more about the topic related to it. The report says education is a critical part of addressing the issue of climate change. In schools, especially, young people need to be taught the impact of our changing climate and given the opportunity to learn how to adapt to it and help identify future solutions.

Large majorities in all countries want schools in their countries to do more to teach people about climate change. Significantly higher proportions of people in LDCs (93 percent) supported more education on climate change compared to 74 percent support in G20 countries.  In Haiti 99 percent people want more education on climate change in schools. But support is low in some countries, with only 29 percent in the USA, 26 percent in Indonesia and 21 percent in Papua New Guinea.

Evidence to develop climate action

This is the first time the public has been asked about climate change in a way that relates to their day-to-day lives, and according to experts, this is important for upcoming discussions.

The first Peoples’ Climate Vote took place in 2021 and surveyed people across 50 countries through advertisements in popular mobile gaming apps.

Prof. Stephen Fisher, Department of Sociology, University of Oxford, said, “A survey of this size was a huge scientific endeavor. While maintaining rigorous methodology, special efforts were also made to include people from marginalized groups in the poorest parts of the world. This is some of the very highest quality global data on public opinions on climate change available.”

As world leaders decide on the next round of pledges under the Paris Agreement by 2025, these results seem to have an impact as evidence that people everywhere support bold climate action.

“The Peoples’ Climate Vote has enlisted the voices of people everywhere, including amongst groups traditionally the most difficult to poll. For example, people in nine of the 77 countries surveyed had never before been polled on climate change,” Cassie Flynn, Global Director of Climate Change, UNDP, said.

“The next two years stand as one of the best chances we have as the international community to ensure that warming stays under 1.5°. We stand ready to support policymakers in stepping up their efforts as they develop their climate action plans.”

IPS UN Bureau Report

 

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

• Explainer: Why GLOFs Are Growing Concern in the Himalaya
• Climate Crisis in Mountains: Borderless Struggle for Frontline Communities
• Another World Seen Through the Lenses of Gender and Sexuality

Lille's former Tottenham and Newcastle midfielder Nabil Bentaleb is taken to hospital in France after falling ill.

Credit: Alain Pitton/NurPhoto via Getty Images

By Andrew Firmin
LONDON, Jun 20 2024 (IPS)

The violence that rocked New Caledonia last month has subsided. French President Emmanuel Macron has recently announced the suspension of changes to voting rights in the Pacific island nation, annexed by his country in 1853. His attempt to introduce these changes sparked weeks of violence.

Colonial legacies

Scattered around the world are 13 territories once part of the French Empire that haven’t achieved independence. Their status varies. Some, such as Guadeloupe and Martinique, have the same legal standing as French mainland regions. Others have more autonomy. New Caledonia is in a category of its own: since the 1998 Nouméa Accord, named after New Caledonia’s capital, France agreed to a gradual transfer of power. Currently, France determines New Caledonia’s defence, economic, electoral, foreign and migration policies.

The Accord came in response to a rising independence movement led by Kanak people, the country’s Indigenous inhabitants. Kanaks make up around 40 per cent of the population, with the rest being people of European descent and smaller groups of Asian, Oceanian and mixed heritage. Kanaks experienced severe discrimination under French colonial rule, and for a period were confined to reservations.

An independence movement formed after a fresh wave of Europeans arrived in the 1970s to work in the nickel-mining industry. New Caledonia is the world’s fourth-largest producer of nickel, a key ingredient in stainless steel and, increasingly, electric vehicle batteries. The nickel boom highlighted the divide in economic opportunities. Unrest lead to worsening violence and, eventually, the Nouméa Accord.

A downturn in the industry has deepened economic strife, exacerbating the poverty, inequality and unemployment many Kanaks experience. Today, around a third of Kanaks live in poverty compared to nine per cent of non-Kanaks.

Multiple referendums

The Accord created different electoral rolls for voting in mainland France and in New Caledonian elections and referendums, where the roll is frozen and only people who lived in the country in 1998 and their children can vote. These limitations were intended to give Kanak people a greater say in three independence referendums provided for in the Accord.

Referendums took place in 2018, 2020 and 2021, and the pro-independence camp lost every time. The 2020 vote was close, with around 47 per cent in favour of independence. But the December 2021 referendum was held amid a boycott by pro-independence parties, which called for a postponement due to the COVID-19 pandemic: an outbreak that began in September 2021 left 280 people dead, most of them Kanak. Independence campaigners complained the vote impinged on traditional Kanak mourning rituals, making it impossible to campaign.

Almost 97 per cent of those who voted rejected independence, but the boycott meant only around 44 per cent of eligible people voted, compared to past turnouts of over 80 per cent.

France viewed this referendum as marking the completion of the Nouméa Accord. Macron made clear he considered the issue settled and appointed anti-independence people to key positions. The independence movement insisted that the vote, imposed by France against its wishes, wasn’t valid and another should be held.

Since the Accord was agreed, the far right has risen to prominence in France, as seen in the recent European Parliament elections. French politics and its politicians have become more racist, with mainstream parties, including Macron’s, tacking rightwards in response to the growing popularity of the far-right National Rally party. The ripple effect in New Caledonia is growing polarisation. As French politicians have promoted a narrow understanding of national identity, New Caledonia’s anti-independence movement has become more emboldened.

China’s push for closer ties with Pacific countries has also raised Oceania’s strategic importance. The US government and its allies, including France, have responded by paying renewed attention to a long-neglected region. France may be less willing to tolerate independence than before, particularly given the growing demand for electric vehicles.

State of emergency

The immediate cause of the protests was the French government’s plan to extend the franchise to anyone who has lived in New Caledonia for more than 10 years. For the independence movement, this was a unilateral departure from the Nouméa Accord’s principles and a setback for prospects for decolonisation and self-determination. Tens of thousands took part in protests against the change, approved by the French National Assembly but pending final confirmation.

On 13 May, clashes between pro-independence protesters and security forces led to riots. Rioters burned down hundreds of buildings in Nouméa. Communities set up barricades and people formed defence groups. Eight people are reported to have died.

France declared a state of emergency and brought in around 3,000 troops to suppress the violence, a move many in civil society criticised as heavy-handed. French authorities also banned TikTok. It was the first time a European Union country has made such a move, potentially setting a dangerous precedent.

Blocking social media platforms will never be the answer!

For two weeks, French authorities blocked TikTok in New Caledonia in an attempt to quell protests. Learn why this action was unacceptable and will always be in violation of human rights:https://t.co/NFaTHvidXI

— Access Now (@accessnow) June 5, 2024

Dialogue needed

Macron, who paid a brief visit once violence had subsided, has said the electoral changes will be suspended to allow for dialogue. His decision to gamble on early elections in France in the wake of his European election defeat has bought him some time.

This time should be used to build bridges and address the evident fact that many Kanak people don’t feel listened to. This goes beyond the question of the franchise. There are deep and unaddressed problems of economic and social exclusion. Many of those involved in violence were young, unemployed Kanaks who feel life has little to offer.

As a consequence of recent developments, New Caledonia is now more divided than it’s been in decades. The question of independence hasn’t been settled. Many Kanak people feel betrayed. For them, before there can be any extension of the franchise, France must agree to complete the unfinished process of decolonisation.

Andrew Firmin is CIVICUS Editor-in-Chief, co-director and writer for CIVICUS Lens and co-author of the State of Civil Society 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');  

Credit: UN Office for West Africa and the Sahel (UNOWAS)
 
Recalling the proclamation in 1993 by the United Nations General Assembly that established 03 May as World Press Freedom Day, the Deputy Special Representative of the United Nations Secretary General for West Africa and the Sahel, Giovanie BIHA, said that "the right to inform and be informed is essential to our freedom as individuals and as a society”. In shaping a future of rights for all, it is imperative to remember that freedom of expression is a key element of democracy and citizen participation.

By Sefa Ikpa
LAGOS, Nigeria, Jun 20 2024 (IPS)

Authoritarian overreach is re-defining itself across West Africa, fuelled by armed conflicts, military coups, and electoral manipulation and violence, as the region experiences a decline in democracy.

Notably, repressive governments are increasingly turning to content moderation laws as the newest tools for gagging the press and stifling free speech on the internet. The internet means many different things to many people. For some, it means a free space to express themselves and ventilate their thoughts without fear of retribution, silencing or coercion.

For politicians, it is a powerful tool to recruit supporters and disseminate campaign messages. For activists, it is a platform to build solidarity, draw attention to social causes, and foster accountability for governments and corporations.

For the media, the internet has revolutionised operations by providing innovative and creative ways for news production, audience engagement, information gathering and dissemination.

For smaller media houses, which otherwise would have struggled with visibility and the costs associated with physical newsroom operations and news production, the internet has offered smarter and cheaper ways to amplify their work.

But the internet’s many successes in facilitating access to critical information and spaces for raising citizens’ concerns have not come without its downsides. The digital revolution has, unfortunately, also provided a platform for widespread misinformation and disinformation, posing a real threat to national security, public order and democratic governance — a paradigm that is particularly troubling for developing democracies like those in West Africa.

Although the challenge of misinformation is not new, the wide scope of manipulation and the multiplicity of techniques and platforms to disseminate information, enabled by evolving technology, have placed the issue in a very unique and unprecedented context.

Ample room for misuse and misinterpretation

In response, state authorities have implemented several technological measures to counter this threat, including the introduction of content moderation laws. These laws, presented as genuine efforts to combat the spread of false information and maintain social order, often end up clashing with already existing laws that guarantee freedom of expression.

In particular, the vague and broad wording of these laws leaves room for misapplication and executive overreach, providing state actors with the impetus to regulate the press or severely punish journalists they consider ‘stubborn’.

Adeboye Adegoke, a digital rights expert and senior manager at Paradigm Initiative, says that ‘content moderation through executive fiat is very common, in which case the governments can take down “offending” content as they choose.

That is the major problem when content moderation laws are not made in consideration of existing laws.’ This issue is exemplified in Mali, where stakeholders denounced the new Suppression of Cybercrime Law, stating that its provisions affecting online press freedom were inconsistent with constitutional laws protecting the press.

While physical harm and overt legal actions are already problematic, the widespread press suppression through legal actions has led to a climate of fear among journalists.

The implementation of these content moderation laws has had a deleterious effect on press freedom across the region. Under the provisions of these laws, journalists have been subjected to harassment, intimidation and legal action.

Nigeria, for example, has passed and implemented a Cybercrimes Act, originally developed as a tool to curb internet-related offenses. Section 24 of the Act, which criminalises the dissemination of offensive, false or menacing messages, has been particularly contentious.

The case of Agba Jalingo, a journalist accused of treasonable felony, terrorism and an attempt to topple the Cross River State Government, has become emblematic of the government’s relentless pursuit of dissident journalists.

Similarly, since taking over power in 2022, Burkina Faso’s junta-led government has overseen the suspension of various media outlets in the country. The country has amended its penal code to criminalise the reporting of terrorist attacks or security issues that could ‘undermine public order’ or ‘demoralise security and defence forces’.

Such offenses can lead to imprisonment for up to 10 years as well as hefty fines. Similar legislation has been enacted in other West African countries like Ghana, Senegal, Togo, Sierra Leone and others.

Self-censorship

While physical harm and overt legal actions are already problematic, the widespread press suppression through legal actions, also known as Strategic lawsuits against public participation, or SLAPP suits, has also led to a climate of fear among journalists, who now resort to self-censorship to avoid punitive measures. In turn, journalists are increasingly afraid to report on sensitive issues.

Blessing Oladunjoye, a Nigerian journalist and publisher of BONews Service, is currently being prosecuted under the Cybercrimes Act for an undercover investigation on fertility clinics and surrogacy in Nigeria.

She expressed the effect of this legal action on her work as follows: ‘After I was served those papers, I started asking myself, what kind of stories am I supposed to do now that I am sure will not provoke anybody? It was terrifying. It has affected the kind of stories I want to pursue.’

In environments where content moderation laws are harshly enforced, journalists may choose to avoid reporting on government corruption, human rights abuses or social unrest. An anonymous Nigerian journalist from a government-owned media house explained that they often had to gauge the government’s stance before publishing stories:

‘Sometimes, you need to feel the pulse of the government. It determines what you write. For instance, with any content that goes against the interest of my principal, you have to think about it beforehand. Personally, I had to be transferred to another state as a result of a story that I wrote that was not in the interest of the government.’

In a true democracy, the press does not live in fear.

But the campaign of calumny against journalists is not only championed by governments; Non-state actors have also taken a page from the authoritarian playbook now, as seen in the case of Oladunjoye. ‘Non-state actors are emboldened to commit attacks against journalists because state actors do it with impunity and, of course, no one holds them accountable for it’, she laments.

Democratic governance in West Africa has been extremely challenging, especially in the last decade, and the suppression of press freedom through content moderation laws poses a significant threat to democratic stability in the region. A free and empowered press – free from any form of control and censorship – is essential for any functional democracy.

The press acts as a check on governments and powerful entities, uncovering corruption, human rights violations, abuse of power and other breaches of social contracts. When journalists are silenced, either through direct legal action or self-censorship, these critical functions are compromised.

As West Africa continues to grapple with these challenges, the path forward requires a nuanced approach that respects the freedoms of the press while addressing the real dangers posed by digital misinformation.

While misinformation and disinformation may have become more prevalent with the rise of digital technologies, content moderation laws must be narrowly tailored to target genuine threats to public order and national security without being used as tools of repression.

The implications of content moderation on journalists can only be mitigated if content moderation laws are developed in the context of existing constitutional laws and with strict legal guidelines applied to protect journalists and ensure that their rights to free expression and access to information are upheld. In a true democracy, the press does not live in fear.

Sefa Ikpa is a social justice advocate and a development communications expert. She works for the inclusion of marginalised groups and voices in governance processes in Nigeria and the protection of civil liberties. She is an electrical and electronics engineer with a passion to enhance digital access and close the gender gap in STEM education, safeguard the civic space in West Africa and promote women’s involvement in governance processes.

Source: International Politics and Society, published by the Global and European Policy Unit of the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, Hiroshimastrasse 28, D-10785 Berlin.

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');