Africa - INTER PRESS SERVICE

United Nations General Assembly Hall

By Richard Ponzio
WASHINGTON DC, Sep 14 2023 (IPS)

Another UNGA (UN General Assembly High-Level Week, September 18-23, 2023) is almost here. Leaders and other senior representatives of the world body’s 193 Member States will gather again for this truly one-of-a-kind annual congregation in New York for high-stakes diplomacy and plenty of domestic political posturing.

While who’s not coming this year has already garnered some headlines (including Presidents Xi, Macron, and Putin, as well as Prime Ministers Modi and Sunak), the international community has rarely faced so many concurrent challenges on a colossal scale requiring global leadership—from extreme poverty, climate change, and unconstrained artificial intelligence to Great Power tensions, destructive conflicts, and a bulging global youth population in urgent need of new skills, opportunities to take initiative, and, perhaps most of all, hope.

In particular, here are six key milestone gatherings and sets of issues to watch during the 78th High-Level Week – in these major civil society-led UNGA side-events:

SDG Summit | September 18-19

Marking the halfway point to the deadline set for achieving the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, world leaders will adopt the SDG Summit’s centerpiece Political Declaration following, at times, tumultuous negotiations.

The declaration seeks to provide high-level guidance on “transformative and accelerated actions” for all countries delivering on the seventeen Sustainable Development Goals.

Regrettably, two anticipated topline messages from the summit are that only fifteen percent of the Sustainable Development Goals’ targets are on track to be reached this critical decade, with over 500 million people likely still to live in extreme poverty by 2030.

For the SDG Summit to succeed, the states people convening in New York must demonstrate renewed political will—combined with concrete actions and backed up by financial resources and other support infrastructure—in the fight to reverse these trends.

Representatives must also push-back against ill-founded, yet lingering concerns among influential developing countries that the Summit of the Future (SOTF) might divert scarce resources and attention away from their core development priorities. At the recent conclusion of India’s presidency (now passed to Brazil for 2024 and South Africa for 2025), the G20 just lent its “full support,” through the G20 New Delhi Leaders’ Declaration, to both the SDG Summit and SOTF.

Summit of the Future Ministerial Meeting | September 21

The Summit of the Future, to be hosted next September 22-23, 2024 in New York, has a stated goal to reaffirm the Charter of the United Nations, reinvigorate multilateralism, boost implementation of existing commitments, agree on concrete solutions to challenges, and restore trust among Member States.

As elaborated in the Stimson Center and partners’ recent Global Governance Innovation Report 2023(section six) and Future of International Cooperation Report 2023(section four), the intertwined nature of the SDG Summit and Summit of the Future has the potential to yield multiple mutually reinforcing dividends, beginning with the SOTF preparatory Ministerial Meeting to immediately follow next week’s SDG Summit.

In a recent decision of the President of the General Assembly, the SOTF will feature a “Pact for the Future” with chapters on: (i) Sustainable Development & Financing for Development, (ii) International Peace and Security, (iii) Science, Technology and Innovation and Digital Cooperation, (iv) Youth and Future Generations, and (v) Transforming Global Governance.

In short, whereas the SDG Summit arrives at a relatively brief high-level political statement that acknowledges global governance systems gaps in need of urgent attention to accelerate progress on the 2030 Agenda, the preparatory process for next year’s Summit of the Future is designed to realize—through well-conceived, politically acceptable, and adequately resourced reform proposals—the actual systemic changes in global governance needed to fill these gaps.

Climate Action Summit | September 20

UN Secretary-General António Guterres’s Climate Ambition Summit aspires to garner new momentum for effective climate action among representatives of governments, business, finance, local authorities, and civil society, as well as “first movers and doers.”

According to leading climate scientists, we may have as few as six to seven years to catalyze the monumental set of actions required to shift course and to avert the worst impacts of unchecked climate change.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change underscores the connections between climate change and the Sustainable Development Goals, and the UN has warned that climate impacts threaten to reverse many of the gains made over previous decades to improve lives.

With the looming potential to overwhelm progress achieved on the wider UN agenda, the climate crisis represents the present era’s quintessential global governance conundrum, making bold and urgent action all the more critical.

Last week’s Africa Climate Summit brought much-needed ingenuity and energy for positive change from many of the countries and communities already experiencing the wide-reaching effects of climate change.

Following just on the heels of this first-of-its-kind climate summit in Nairobi, the UN’s Climate Ambition Summit aims to catalyze action from the private sector, finance, and civil society, as well as local and national governments. To this end, Stimson is also proud to support the Mary Robinson, María Fernanda Espinosa, and Johan Rockström-led Climate Governance Commission, whose Governing our Planetary Emergency recommendations will be released around COP-28 (November 30-December 12, 2023) in Dubai.

Ukraine, Sudan, Afghanistan, and other Hotspots (UNGA General Debate and UNSC Ministerial)

President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, attending his first General Assembly High-Level Week in-person since Russia’s February 2022 invasion of Ukraine, has landed a coveted speaking slot on the first morning (Tuesday, 19 September) of the Assembly’s General Debate, shortly after the traditional lead-off statements by the new President of the General Assembly (Ambassador Dennis Francis of Trinidad and Tobago), Brazil (President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva), and the UN’s host nation, the United States (President Joe Biden).

Ukraine will also feature again next week on the Security Council’s agenda in a special high-level session, “Upholding the purposes and principles of the UN Charter through effective multilateralism: Maintenance of peace and security of Ukraine.”

General Debate statements by world leaders are also anticipated to speak to other hot conflicts and fragile states – including Sudan and Afghanistan – and the Secretary-General’s recently introduced New Agenda for Peace.

Mr. Guterres’s related Emergency Platform proposal may also garner some attention, building on this month’s Security Council open debate, “Advancing Public-Private Humanitarian Partnership” featuring World Food Programme Executive Director Cindy McCain and former Google CEO Eric Schmidt.

New UN Youth Office and Assistant Secretary-General for Youth

Further to last year’s adoption of General Assembly Resolution 76/306, the seventy-eighth session of the General Assembly will further be remembered for the establishment of a new United Nations Youth Office, led by a soon-to-be-appointed Assistant Secretary-General for Youth (while bidding farewell and appreciation to the outstanding UN Youth Envoy, Jayathma Wickramanayake, and her office).

Together, they will, inter alia, advance youth issues across the UN agenda, while working to promote “meaningful, inclusive and effective engagement of youth” across the UN system.

Well-timed to coincide with the one-year-to-go preparations for the September 2024 Summit of the Future, a successful UN Youth Office will need, according to my colleague Nudhara Yusuf and Search for Common Ground’s Saji Prelis, to understand the urgency and responsibility to act in upcoming UN policymaking and programming, to coordinate across existing youth engagement mechanisms, and to embrace new forms of leadership suited to a highly interconnected planet.

Financing for Development (September 20), the Bridgetown Initiative, and Global Financial Architecture Reform

On September 20, the General Assembly will convene its second High-Level Dialogue on Financing for Development since the adoption of the Addis Ababa Action Agenda. Against growing calls for Global Financial Architecture reform and greater climate financing (through Barbados Prime Minister Mia Mottley’s Bridgetown Initiative, which she is widely expected to showcase during the 78th High-Level Week), developing countries will likely continue to express concerns that rich nations are still not doing enough to finance the SDGs and other development priorities, while donors will emphasize the importance of Addis commitments on domestic resource mobilization and fighting corruption.

Two related policy ideas to keep a close eye on next week are the Secretary-General Guterres’ recent proposals: (i) for the G20 to agree on a $500 billion annual stimulus for sustainable development through a combination of concessional and non-concessional finance (as mentioned in the recent G20 Declaration); and (ii) for a Biennial Summit on the Global Economy bringing together the G20, World Bank, IMF, and UN for enhanced global economic governance.

Conclusion

As the United Nations enters its seventy-eighth year, questions continue to swirl about the world body’s vitality and its ability to keep pace with fast-changing trends in socioeconomic dynamics, the environment, peace and security, and technology.

If world leaders, together with diverse partners across civil society and the business community, step up next week with genuine pledges of support for concrete actions in the above areas—and on related subjects such as preventing future pandemics and other health crises, bolstering food security, and safeguarding human rights—they can go a long toward quieting critics who consider the UN to be merely a talk shop.

Importantly, doing so will dramatically improve conditions and expand the window of discourse, priming global leaders to seize the generational opportunity to renew and innovate our global governance system in the run-up to next September’s Summit of the Future.

Richard Ponzio is Director of the Global Governance, Justice & Security Program and a Senior Fellow at Stimson. Previously, he directed the Global Governance Program at The Hague Institute for Global Justice, where (in a partnership with Stimson) he served as Director for the Albright-Gambari Commission on Global Security, Justice & Governance.

Source: Stimson Center, Washington DC

IPS UN Bureau

 

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

Credit: UNICEF
 
More than half the world’s population is younger than 25. But the enormous quantity of young people does often not translate into qualitative influence about democratic decision-making processes, according to UNICEF. Meanwhile, a new poll commissioned by the Open Society Foundations finds that young people around the world hold the least faith in democracy of any age group, presenting a grave threat to its future. The Open Society Barometer is one of the largest ever studies of global public opinion on human rights and democracy across 30 countries—painting a picture of the attitudes, concerns, and hopes of over 5.5 billion people worldwide.

By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Sep 14 2023 (IPS)

The recent epidemic of coups in Africa — including military take-overs in Mali, Burkina Faso, Niger and Gabon– have triggered the inevitable question: Is multi-party democracy on the retreat?

The Open Society Barometer, an annual global survey from Open Society Foundations, launched September 12, reflects the positive and negative aspects of the state democracy worldwide.

The survey finds that young people around the world (Generation Z and millennials) “hold the least faith in democracy of any age group, presenting a grave threat to its future”.

Over a third (35%) of respondents in the 18-35 age group were supportive of a strong leader who does away with parliament and elections.

A large minority of young people surveyed (42%) feel that military rule is a good way of running a country. A similar number (35%) feel that having a strong leader who does not bother with elections or consulting parliament/congress is a good way of running a country.

This compares to 20% that support military rule and 26% that are in favor of a strong leader in the 56 plus age bracket.

Still, the report, The Open Society Barometer: Can Democracy Deliver? finds that the concept of democracy remains widely popular across every region of the globe, with 86% saying that they would prefer to live in a democratic state.

There is also widespread disbelief that authoritarian states can deliver more effectively than democracies on priorities both nationally and in global forums.

https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/focus/open-society-barometer

Commenting on the findings, Mark Malloch-Brown, president of the Open Society Foundations, said: “Our findings are both sobering and alarming. People around the world still want to believe in democracy. But generation-by-generation, that faith is fading as doubts grow about its ability to deliver concrete improvements to their lives. That has to change.”

Asked for his reaction, Andreas Bummel, Executive Director of Democracy Without Borders, told IPS: “It is good news that a huge majority of people say they consider it important to live in a democracy”.

At the same time, much less say they believe democracy is preferable to any other kind of government. This is a contradiction that requires more analysis, he pointed out.

“It is a warning that young people appear to be less convinced of democratic government. It must be understood better why this is the case.”

The state of civic education and better ways for political participation may be among the issues to be looked at. In general terms, it is clear that democratic governments need to perform better, Bummel declared.

The survey was described as one of the largest global opinion surveys on the status of democracy and human rights, reflecting the views of over 5.5 billion people.

Comprising public opinion data from 30 countries – including the US, UK, France, Germany, Italy, China, Brazil, Japan, Turkey, Russia, South Africa, and India – the survey paints a surprising picture of the generational shift of young people lacking faith in democracy to deliver on their priorities.

The survey also finds that:

• Democracy remains popular across every region of the globe, but the poll found lower levels of support among young people, as the world faces multiple challenges (the ‘polycrisis’)—from poverty and inequality, to climate change—and patchy evidence that democracies are improving the lives of their citizens.

• Just 57% of young people (aged 18 to 36) believe democracy is preferable to any form of government, compared to 71% of older respondents; while 42% of young people are supportive of military rule, compared to 20% of older respondents (aged 56 plus).

• Overwhelming majorities support human rights, with an average of 72% of respondents identifying them as a “force for good in the world.” Yet, a significant minority (42%) believe that they are used by Western countries to punish developing countries.

• 70% of respondents around the world are anxious that climate change will have a negative impact on them and their livelihoods in the next year.

The findings also include:

• People support democracy. Only 20% consider authoritarian countries more capable than democracies of delivering “what citizens want.” At the international level, two-thirds (66%) of respondents feel that democracies contribute more to global cooperation. Respondents also believe firmly in human rights, with an overwhelming 95% rejecting the idea that it’s ok for governments to violate the rights of those who look different from themselves. Countries across every region, income level, and current type of governance maintained strong levels of support.

• As people feel the weight of multiple crises, over half (53%) of respondents think their country is headed in the wrong direction. Young people aged 18 to 35 are the most skeptical of democracy, with just 57% deeming it preferable to other types of government.

• Majorities in 21 of the countries polled fear that political unrest could lead to violence in the next year. Fear was highest in South Africa and Kenya (79%), Colombia (77%), Nigeria (75%), Senegal (74%), and Argentina and Pakistan (both 73%). Large majorities in some high-income countries also share this worry, including two-thirds of respondents in the United States and France. Forty-two percent of respondents believe the laws of their country do not keep people like them safe. This was particularly felt in Latin America, with significant majorities in every country: Brazil (74%), Argentina (73%), Colombia (65%), and Mexico (60%).

• Half of respondents (49%) say they have struggled to feed themselves at least once in the last year—a number that holds in states as dissimilar as Bangladesh and the United States—both with 52% of respondents. Especially large majorities in Sri Lanka (85%), Turkey and Kenya (both 73%) experienced this.

• The climate crisis is a high priority for citizens across low-, middle-, and high-income countries. Climate change was considered the top global issue by 32% of people in India and in Italy, followed by Germany (28%), Egypt (27%), Mexico (27%), France (25%), and Bangladesh (25%). Anxiety that climate change will personally affect respondents and their livelihoods in the next year was felt by 70% of those surveyed, and was markedly high in Bangladesh (90%), Turkey (85%), Ethiopia (83%), Kenya (83%), and India (82%), and lowest in China (45%), Russia (48%), and the UK (54%).

• Across the globe, corruption is considered the chief concern for people at a national level, with an average of 23% saying it is the most important issue facing their country. Countries in Africa and Latin America, such as Ghana (45%), South Africa and Nigeria (both 44%), Colombia (37%), and Mexico (36%) stand in stark contrast with Western Europe. In France and the UK, corruption is viewed as the main concern by just 7% of people; in Germany, just 6%.

• Poverty and inequality rank the highest (21%) among the issues that most directly impact people personally. This holds true in Senegal (the smallest economy surveyed) as well as the United States (the largest). Moreover, a majority (69%) believe that economic inequality between countries is a bigger challenge this year than last. This is most keenly felt in Africa, Latin America, and the Middle East.

• Migration is highly visible but of low concern. Despite being front and center of political campaigns in many countries, just 7% of respondents said migration was their biggest concern at the global and national level. This suggests the salience of this issue is largely concentrated to political parties, and not among the public at large. The survey found that two-thirds (66%) of respondents want to see more safe and legal routes for migrants.

• A plurality of respondents believe China’s growing influence will be a force for good: nearly twice as many respondents believe this will have a positive impact (45%) on their country as a negative one (25%). However, there is a sharp contrast between the enthusiasm of lower income countries like Pakistan (76%), Ethiopia (72%), and Egypt (71%), and the overwhelming negativity of high-income democracies, where only small minorities register positivity about the rise of China, as is the case in Japan (3%), Germany (14%), Ukraine (15%), and the UK (16%). Somewhere in the middle, a quarter of Americans answered positively, while 48% felt it would be negative.

• People believe that a fairer international system would be more effective. 61% of those surveyed believe low-income countries should have a greater say in global decision-making—though, predictably, lower-income regions were more enthusiastic than Europe and the United States on this front. 75% believe that high-income countries increase their overseas aid, donate more money to the World Bank to support lower income countries (68%), and lead the way in reducing emissions (79%).

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: AFP via Getty Images

By Inés M. Pousadela
MONTEVIDEO, Uruguay, Sep 13 2023 (IPS)

On 26 August, Gabon went through the motions of an election. Official results were announced four days later, in the middle of the night, with the country under curfew. Predictably, incumbent President Ali Bongo, in power since the death of his father and predecessor in 2009, was handed a third term. Fraud allegations were rife, as in previous elections. But this time something unprecedented happened: less than an hour later the military had taken over, and the Bongo family’s 56-year reign had ended.

In Gabon, people welcomed the military with open arms, thanking them for liberating them from the authoritarian yoke they’d lived under, most for all their lives. But overturning an oppressive regime isn’t the same as achieving democratic freedom. Studies show that although democracies are occasionally established in the wake of coups, too often it’s new authoritarian regimes that emerge, bringing even higher levels of state-sanctioned violence and human rights abuses.

A predatory autocracy

Omar Bongo gained power in 1967 and kept it for more than 40 years. He only started allowing multi-party competition in 1991, after making sure his ironically named Gabonese Democratic Party would retain its grip through a combination of patronage and repression.

His son and successor retained the dynasty’s power with elections plagued by irregularities in 2009 and 2016. In both instances it was widely believed that Bongo wasn’t the real winner. The constitution was repeatedly amended to allow further terms and electoral rules and timetables were systematically manipulated.

In 2016, blatant fraud sparked violent protests that were even more violently repressed. In 2018, Bongo suffered a stroke that took him out of the public eye for almost a year, fuelling concerns that he might be unfit to rule. But a 2019 attempted military coup failed and was followed by a media crackdown, arrests of opposition politicians and a hardening of the Penal Code to criminalise dissent.

Under the Bongos’ dynastic reign, corruption, nepotism and predatory elite behaviour were rampant. A small country of 2.3 million, Gabon has vast oil reserves, accounting for around 60 per cent of its revenues. In terms of per capita GDP, it’s one of Africa’s richest countries – but a third of its population is poor, a stark contrast with the incalculable ill-gotten wealth of the Bongo family and their inner circle.

Why now and what next?

The coup was presented as a reaction to an undoubtedly fraudulent election. Upon seizing power, the self-appointed ‘Committee for the Transition and Restoration of Institutions’ announced the annulment of the vote and the dissolution of executive, legislative, judicial and electoral institutions.

Bongo was placed under house arrest along with his eldest son and advisor before being released and allowed to leave the country on medical grounds. Several top officials have been arrested on charges of treason, corruption and various illicit activities, and large quantities of cash have been reportedly seized from their homes.

Coup leader General Brice Oligui Nguema is now the head of the supposedly transitional junta in power. He’s assured that the dissolution of institutions is only ‘temporary’ and that these will be made ‘more democratic’. There’ll be elections, he’s said, but not too soon. First a new constitution will have to be drafted, along with a new criminal code and electoral legislation.

But while celebrations broke out in the streets, the international condemnation was swift, starting with United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres. The African Union suspended Gabon until constitutional order is restored, as did the Economic Community of Central African States.

Condemnation came from the European Union and several of its member states, and the Commonwealth, which Gabon was allowed to join in June 2022 despite not complying with minimum democracy and human rights standards. The president of Nigeria, Bola Tinubu, expressed concern about the ‘autocratic contagion’ spreading across Africa. Tinubu is currently leading efforts by the Economic Community of West African States to reverse the recent coup in Niger.

Some observers argue that this coup is different from others in Central and West Africa since it wasn’t based on security concerns but rather the absence of democracy, focused on election fraud and the corruption and mismanagement that stopped institutions meeting people’s basic demands. This is the position many in Gabonese civil society are taking, placing them at odds with the international institutions they accuse of having tolerated the Bongos for so long.

But others disagree, even if they’re happy to see the Bongos go. The opposition candidate widely believed to have been the real election winner, Albert Ondo Ossa, expressed his disappointment at what he described as a ‘palace revolution’ and a ‘family affair’. He’d hoped for a recount, which could have placed him at the head of a new, democratic government. What he saw instead was a transitional government that could be seen as a continuation of the ousted regime, not least because of the family links between the Bongos and General Nguema, also the happy owner of a fortune of unknown origins. Some of the new government appointments appear to confirm Ossa’s suspicions.

Beyond its composition, there’s the key question of how long this government intends to last. The pomp of Nguema’s inauguration ceremony belies its avowedly temporary tenure.

This is the eighth successful military coup in West and Central Africa over the past four years. Nowhere have the military retreated to the barracks after implementing what were invariably described as ‘corrective’ and ‘temporary’ measures.

On taking over, the military has seized not only political power but also control of the economic wealth that sustained the Bongo kleptocracy. They’re unlikely to let go willingly, and the longer they stay, the harder it will be to unseat them.

The coup government has so far shown a moderate face, but there’s no guarantee this will last. If the people who took to the streets to celebrate the coup ultimately do so again to protest at the lack of real change, repression will surely follow.

The international community must continue to urge the military to commit to a plan for a rapid transition to fully democratic rule. Otherwise, the danger is that the Gabonese people will merely move from one dictatorship to another, and nothing will remain of that fleeting moment when freedom seemed within reach.

Inés M. Pousadela is CIVICUS Senior Research Specialist, 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');  

In class at the public school in Lasbela, in Pakistan’s Balochistan province. The low quality of government schools has turned private education into a luxury accessible to only a few. Credit: Mariyam Suleman Anees/IPS

By Mariyam Suleman Anees
GWADAR, Pakistan, Sep 13 2023 (IPS)

Ten years ago I ran an academy for girls in Dohr Gatti, a small slum on the outskirts of Gwadar, a coastal city in Balochistan, southwestern Pakistan. Most of the girls were between the ages of eleven and fifteen and had the little opportunity to receive a formal education.

Plagued by tradition and poverty, their desire to learn was often thwarted by the tradition of marrying as soon as they reached puberty and spend the rest of their lives raising children, as their mothers had.

When parents can only afford to invest in the education of a single child, they tend to prioritize the boy, as he is more likely to get a paid job and live with his parents in the future, says Hafsa Qadir

At the academy I tried to raise awareness in the community about how crucial it was for girls to receive an education. That worked, at least a little.

Years later, some girls in Dohr Gatti managed to enroll in local public schools. In 2021, one of my students got the highest score on the district’s annual eighth-grade exam.

But even that couldn’t change her destiny. Soon after her triumph on the test, which showed her potential to continue studying, she had to stop. She was married off and sent to a remote village, where she still lives with her in-laws and a husband much older than her.

I often wonder how far students like her could have gone if their right to education was protected and if they only had one chance to pursue their dreams.

The question often raised in such cases is “who exactly is to blame?”

Religion and tradition intermingle in Balochistan, a region of Pakistan which has its own language and culture but where, as in the rest of the country, Sunni Islam is hegemonic.

Parents, tradition, patriarchy, poverty, political unrest in the region, the education system itself, the government, all come under scrutiny. But the state of access to education for girls remains largely unchanged.

 

Girls at Pishukan public school. The majority of them will not attend secondary school after being married as soon as they reach puberty. Credit: Anila Yousuf/IPS

 

A luxury good

Balochistan is Pakistan’s largest yet most underdeveloped province. According to a World Bank report, the overall literacy rate in the province is 41 percent. It’s half that for women, 19 percent.

It’s no surprise that only two out of ten women can read in Balochistan, when UN data suggests that 78 percent of Baloch girls of school age do not go to school. For those who do manage to attend, the dropout rate among female students is much higher.

Despite these stark obstacles, some have made progress. Some Baloch women have not only completed their education and begun successful careers, but have also actively contributed to improving girls’ education in the region.

Anila Yousuf is the principal of a girls’ school in Pishukan, a small fishing village in southern Balochistan. She has recently been selected for Postgraduate studies in the United Kingdom, and recently published a collection of stories of women from Gwadar, her hometown.

But she’s aware she’s the exception:

“There´s lower enrollment among girls and many of them drop out of school as soon as they reach secondary school. This means that the number of women both in higher education and in the working sector is much lower,” Yousuf tells IPS.

Long-standing political tensions between Pakistan’s central government and Balochistan often takes some of the blame for the problem, with budgets for local education often treated as a political football.

However, a 2010 reform in Pakistan’s constitution transferred responsibility for education to local provinces, and led to increases in provincial public funding for education.

International agencies including the World Bank, UNICEF, US Partnership, and British Council have also been working through local organizations focused on reducing gendered disparities in provincial education.

Provincial ministers receive an annual ‘development fund’ to allocate towards various projects, including education initiatives, within their respective constituencies. Critics say the money does not appear to have chipped away at the problem much, however.

“There is no proper planning for effective use of funds. Not even public-school teachers enroll their children in them,” says Yousuf. “They choose private schools or send their children outside the province.”

Private schools have become a thriving business in the towns and cities of the province. But with 60% of the population living below the poverty line, private schooling for girls is a luxury inaccessible to the majority.

The lack of women with formal educations in Balochistan has affected the local labor market, and limited many Baloch women’s ability to start careers. According to Yousuf, most of the few women who enter the workforce are usually teachers or healthcare workers.

“I fear that we are going backwards throughout the country. Women are increasingly locked up at home. There are still specific markets for them and more and more Koranic schools are seen, more women hidden under a burla,” says the activist.

 

Anila Yousuf with her students in the library of the school she runs in Pishukan. Education in Pakistan is segregated and there are fewer schools for female students. Credit: Mariyam Suleman Anees/IPS

 

Gender roles

Zaitoon Kareen, a university professor in Uthal, Balochistan, tells IPS that educating a daughter is always more expensive in Balochistan.

“Baloch girls need assistance, especially for higher education when they have to travel and live in a different town or city. They need better shelters and someone to accompany them when traveling to schools or universities for safety reasons,” explains Kareen.

She will be leaving the province herself soon, after being accepted for a Postgraduate study in the UK.

The Annual Status of Education Report (ASER) suggests that girls only attend school if there is one close to home. But with only 26 percent of primary schools, 42 percent of lower secondary and 36 percent of upper secondary schools accepting girls, it’s often hard for families to find a neighborhood school their daughters can attend.

“When parents can only afford to invest in the education of a single child, they tend to prioritize the boy, as he is more likely to get a paid job and live with his parents in the future,” Hafsa Qadir, an activist with WANG -a local NGO- tells IPS.

In 2020, the Baloch provincial government attempted to address the problem, claiming a new educational plan, the Educational Sector Plan 2020-25, would address the disparity.

But COVID-19 and the devastating floods of 2022 wiped out hundreds of schools and roads in the region, the plans were derailed.

Zakia Baloch, a local woman who attended school and now works as a physical therapist — one of the first women to work in the field in the region — said part of the problem is the schools themselves often dissuade girls from continuing their education.

“Instead of providing proper education, there is often a heavy emphasis on traditional gender roles, preparing girls primarily for domestic roles rather than equipping them for careers and empowering them as independent individuals,” she says.

She called the government-funded education system “negligent” in its teacher selection process, resulting in “inadequately trained educators with very limited skills and exposure.”

“In 2023, when technology has opened many avenues of learning, our system is still locked in a cocoon,” laments the Baloch woman.

Women walk in a village in Indian-administered Kashmir. Women here often find themselves lured by the promise of a job into unsuitable marriages. Credit: Athar Parvaiz/IPS

By Athar Parvaiz
BUDGAM, INDIA, Sep 13 2023 (IPS)

It has been over a decade since 32-year-old Rafiqa (not her real name) was sold to a villager after being lured by the promise that she would be employed in the handicrafts industry of Indian-administered Kashmir.

But, instead of getting a job, she was sold to a Kashmiri man in central Kashmir’s Budgam district for a paltry sum of 50,000 Indian rupees (USD 605). Before the traffickers lured her, Rafiqa lived with her parents and three siblings in a poor Muslim family in West Bengal, a state in eastern India.

Ranging from Rohingya refugees – there are an estimated 40,000 Rohingya refugees in India – to women in other states of the country, such as West Bengal and Assam, women are trafficked and sold as brides to men who find it hard to find brides within their communities. Such grooms often include aged, physically challenged, and men with mental health issues.

Rafiqa’s husband, who drives a horse-cart for a living and lives in a one-room wooden shed, had to sell the only cow he possessed to pay the sum to the human traffickers.

She has now come to terms with “what I was destined to face in my life.” Embracing the reality, she says, was the only option left with her.

“I could have either tried to escape or taken some extreme step, but I decided to apply myself positively to make some kind of life out of what I ended up with,” Rafiqa told IPS while sitting at the base of the small wooden staircase of her house. “My husband’s simplicity and kind nature were also helpful in taking this decision – even though I didn’t like his appearance.”

“Now I have three kids for whom I have to live,” Rafiqa said. “I miss my parents and siblings. But it is very difficult to visit them. Even if I convince my husband, we can’t afford to visit them as it takes a lot of money to pay for the travel,” she added, saying her husband hardly provides two square meals for the family.

Rafiqa is not the only trafficked woman in that village. Over a dozen women have ended up getting married in similar circumstances. Elsewhere in the region, hundreds of other women from the Indian states of West Bengal and Assam are married to divorced and physically challenged men.

When 23-year-old Zarina (name changed), a woman from a poor family in West Bengal, got ensnared in a human trafficker’s trap, she had no idea that she would end up marrying a man whom she had never seen and was almost double her age. Zarina also fell for the false promise that a job in a carpet manufacturing unit in north Kashmir’s Patan area would be arranged for her. But, to her shock, she was sold into marriage.

“Now, how will my situation change after talking to you if it has not changed in the last five years? This is where I must be all my life,” an annoyed Zarina told IPS and then refused to elaborate.

Some women who encounter human traffickers are far unluckier. In a village of southern Kashmir’s Anantnag district, a young Rohingya woman was sold to a family by traffickers for their son with mental health issues after she was trafficked from a Rohingya refugee makeshift camp in the adjacent Jammu province.

“We were surprised when we discovered that the family has got a bride for their son who we knew was not mentally sound since his childhood,” said a neighbour of the family. “We would hear her screaming when her husband used to beat her almost every day. But fortunately for her, the young Rohingya woman was somehow able to escape after a few months.”

There are not any accurate official figures about sold brides, but some estimates say that thousands of girls and women are sold annually. The media sometimes reports the arrest of human traffickers, but such reports are not that common.

On July 26, India’s Minister of State for Home Affairs, Ajay Kumar Mishra, told the Indian parliament that 1,061,648 women above 18 years and 251,430 girls below 18 years went missing between 2019 and 2021 across different states in the country.

Mishra, however, said that most of the victims have been found and added that the Indian government has taken several initiatives for the safety of women.

Last year in April, India’s National Commission for Women launched an Anti-Human Trafficking Cell “to improve effectiveness in tackling cases of human trafficking, raising awareness among women and girls, capacity building and training of Anti Trafficking Units, and to increase the responsiveness of law enforcement agencies.”

In its 2023 Trafficking in Persons Report, the US Department of State identifies India as a Tier 2 country.

“The Government of India does not fully meet the minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking but is making significant efforts to do so. The government demonstrated overall increasing efforts compared with the previous reporting period, considering the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, if any, on its anti-trafficking capacity; therefore, India remained on Tier 2,” the report says.

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

• Flooding, Water Insecurity Looms as Indian Kashmir’s Titanic Water Bodies Shrink
• Kashmir Now Hotspot of Illegal Riverbed Mining
• How Encroachments, Willows and Silt Ate up Half of Kashmir’s Own Sea

By Jomo Kwame Sundaram
KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia, Sep 13 2023 (IPS)

The commodity boom early this century was mainly driven by mineral prices. Yet, mining’s contribution to developing countries’ revenue has been modest, largely due to massive tax evasion and avoidance.

Less mining royalties
Decades of well-supervised mineral extraction prove resource extraction by accountable and effective states can accumulate more ‘resource rents’ to enhance sustainable development and social welfare.

Jomo Kwame Sundaram

Well-regulated, progressive resource rent taxation can greatly enhance such extractive industries’ fiscal contribution to public wellbeing and national development.

But mining royalty rates fell significantly at the end of the 20th century to a range up to 30 per cent. Mineral revenue rates must be increased if resource-rich developing countries are to progress.

Those responsible have justified lowering resource rents for host governments and economies. The World Bank’s Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative supposedly seeks to cut corruption associated with mining, and to attract more mining foreign direct investment.

From the late 20th century, Tanzania rapidly became the third largest gold producer in Africa – after South Africa and Ghana, once known as the Gold Coast.

But with negligible royalties and tax revenue, Tanzania – a least developed country – subsidizes the government-provided infrastructure built to attract primarily foreign gold mining investors.

Ten policy proposals
The Intergovernmental Forum on Mining, Minerals, Metals and Sustainable Development (IGF) and the African Tax Administration Forum (ATAF) have proposed how developing countries can benefit more from their mineral resources.

Their book – The Future of Resource Taxation: 10 policy ideas to mobilize mining revenues – considers policy options available to governments, and offers lessons from how several have successfully implemented the proposed approaches.

Minimum Profit Share for Government
Many governments receive mineral resource rents via royalties and corporate income tax. A few insist on minimum government revenue even when prices fall below thresholds. The book assesses whether such ‘profit sharing’ – in Tanzania, the Philippines and Ecuador – improved on the status quo ante.

Production Sharing Contracts
Many governments get oil and gas revenues via production sharing contracts. Some have been considering whether such arrangements would work well for other minerals. A chapter considers issues arising from executing such contracts.

State Equity Participation
State equity participation enables governments to receive dividends and other benefits from their investments. The volume offers practical guidance in this regard.

Commercial State-Owned Enterprises
Nationalist desires for mineral resource ownership may involve fully state-owned mining enterprises to maximize economic benefits to the nation. One chapter recommends how such companies should be established, expanded and reformed to succeed.

Variable royalties
Variable royalty rates are easier to enforce than profit or cash-flow based taxes. The book offers pragmatic guidance from reviewing variable royalties in 15 countries.

Related-Party Sales
Resource-rich Latin American countries have been using commodity prices from a relevant exchange – such as the London Metals Exchange – to reduce tax dodging involving mineral transactions. Such reference prices are less vulnerable to related-party mineral sales’ tax dodging.

Carbon Pricing and Border Adjustment Mechanisms
The carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM) taxes imports from outside the European Union (EU) for presumed greenhouse gas emissions at rates equal to what EU-made products are charged by its Emissions Trading Scheme. The report considers CBAM’s likely impact on mineral-exporting developing countries, and whether they should emulate it.

Community Revenue from a Development Turnover Tax
Some mining tax instruments cater to specific demands from resource-rich countries. One chapter discusses a ‘development turnover tax’ requiring private mining companies to invest in shared public infrastructure. Alternatively, the national revenue authority can collect a development turnover tax for a government-run mining development fund to do likewise.

Competitive Bidding for Mining Rights
Under the correct conditions, competitive bidding can efficiently assign mineral resource extraction licences to private companies. The report describes how countries can increase revenue from allocating mining licences via competitive bidding.

Better Monitoring of Quarrying
In most resource-rich countries, regulatory oversight and mining revenue mobilization tend to focus on precious minerals, ignoring quarried industrial minerals. Remote monitoring can help tax authorities better assess quarried output volumes and sales.

Implementation matters
When mining companies use their power, money and influence to get mining rights, land, water and other resources, they invariably provoke resistance, often local. But better international, national and local regulation can reduce such adverse impacts and related conflicts.

Some proposals in the volume involve incremental changes, while others are more radical. But they all need careful government consideration to ascertain appropriateness. Of course, the likelihood of success also depends on various circumstances.

Governments require human and financial resources to implement the proposed reforms. They should avoid inefficient and ineffective tax incentives as well as enforcement powers undermining government policies and the law.

Effective implementation often needs support for resource-rich developing countries – from international organizations, bilateral and other development partners – to improve mineral resource rent collection.

Generally, mining revenue has fallen short of expectations – largely due to inappropriate laws, poor investment agreements, overly generous tax incentives, tax evasion and avoidance. Some countries also lack the needed expertise, information and means to effectively implement mining taxation, free of corruption.

Intensified competition for mineral resources is worsening rivalries. As demand grows, new alliances and rivalries are emerging, even as circumstances change.

With such uncertainties in a fast changing international situation, developing countries can better advance their national interests by cooperating and staying non-aligned, rather than competing with other mineral producing nations.

IPS UN Bureau

 

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

African leaders, calling for urgent action by developed countries to reduce carbon emissions, have proposed a new financing mechanism to restructure Africa’s crippling debt and unlock climate funding. In a call to action, African leaders attending the inaugural Africa Climate Summit held in Nairobi, Kenya, stressed the importance of decarbonizing the global economy for equality and shared prosperity. Credit: United Nations

By Eve Devillers
OAKLAND, California, Sep 13 2023 (IPS)

In the wake of the recent Africa Climate Summit, which convened in Nairobi from September 4-6, 2023, the world’s attention was drawn to the pressing challenges facing the African continent as it grapples with the devastating effects of climate change.

Accounting for less than 4 percent of global emissions, Africa is owed a significant climate debt by historical polluters, yet has received only 12 percent of the US$300 billion in annual financing it needs to cope with climate-related challenges.

The three-day Summit culminated in the adoption of the Nairobi Declaration, which articulates the shared position of African countries as they prepare for the upcoming COP28 climate change. Reflecting the deep historical injustices that have left the continent disproportionately vulnerable to worsening climate shocks, the declaration calls for “a new financing architecture that is responsive to Africa’s needs,” including debt restructuring and relief, as well as a “carbon tax on fossil fuel trade, maritime transport and aviation, that may also be augmented by a global financial transaction tax.”

However, these calls for justice ring hollow when examining the investments and initiatives actually prioritized at the Summit, revealing a striking paradox. During the gathering, the agenda primarily revolved around the expansion of carbon markets – a dangerous and false climate solution that opens up the continent to green colonialism and reinforces the status quo of North/South power imbalances.

Hundreds of millions of dollars were pledged to this extractive and speculative system, turning a blind eye to the fact that carbon offsets have spectacularly failed to reduce emissions and have a troubling history of triggering evictions, decimating livelihoods, and exacerbating environmental harm in Africa, as outlined in a recent report by the Oakland Institute.

In one of the event’s most anticipated deals, investors from the United Arab Emirates (UAE) committed to purchase US$450 million worth of carbon credits from the Africa Carbon Markets Initiative (ACMI). Climate Asset Management – a joint venture of HSBC and climate investment firm Pollination – also announced a US$200 million investment in projects that produce ACMI credits.

Launched at COP27 by the Global Energy Alliance for People and Planet, Sustainable Energy for All, The Rockefeller Foundation, and UN Economic Commission for Africa, ACMI hands disproportionate control of Africa’s carbon markets to wealthy countries and oil interests, allowing polluters to continue emitting with impunity while Africa supplies them with carbon credits. Instead of serving the interests of the African continent, the financial pledges made during the Summit threaten to exacerbate existing inequalities and further extractivism.

However, heads of state and leaders celebrated these investments, advancing the flawed belief that carbon markets represent a viable source of climate financing. Kenyan President William Ruto described carbon sinks as an “unparalleled economic goldmine,” while European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen pitched “true carbon credits” as a “solution that would unlock huge resources for climate action in Africa.”

US Special Presidential Envoy for Climate John Kerry similarly declared that “Africa needs a thriving carbon market as a tool to fight the climate crisis.” Contrary to these assertions, carbon markets mainly benefit foreign developers and financial intermediaries – wealthy individuals, firms, and organizations based in the Global North – with host countries and local communities often only receiving a small fraction of the revenues generated.

While the Africa Climate Summit was dominated by false solutions, the breakthrough came in the form of the alternative Real Africa Climate Summit, which brought together over 500 civil society groups – showcasing the power and vibrancy of the African climate movement.

In response to the failings of the official Summit, civil society groups organized an alternative People’s Assembly and March, which catalyzed conversations and collaboration among grassroots movements, farmer organizations, Indigenous communities, activists, and faith-based actors.

The outcome of this counter-mobilization is the African People’s Climate and Development Declaration, which provides a vision for African climate action that is far more ambitious than the Nairobi Declaration. Centered around African solutions, climate justice, and a people-centered approach, the People’s Declaration outlines the real solutions African leaders must demand at the upcoming COP28 and beyond.

These include a redefinition of development away from perpetual growth, people-centered renewable energy, agroecology and food sovereignty, ecosystem protection and restoration, a socially just transition away from fossil fuels, and the dismantling of transnational corporations’ power.

Addressing the climate emergency cannot come at the expense of those who contributed the least to it. Nor can it be tackled with the same extractive and neocolonial system that created it in the first place.
As we move forward towards COP28 in Dubai, African nations must reject false climate solutions that surrender control over their natural resources to wealthy countries in the Global North.

Instead, African leaders must listen to the calls of civil society and prioritize genuine solutions that pave the way for a just transition and prioritize the well-being of African people.

Eve Devillers is a Research Associate at the Oakland Institute, an independent policy think tank bringing fresh ideas and bold action to the most pressing social, economic, and environmental issues of our time. www.oaklandinstitute.org

IPS UN Bureau

 

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

By Sotaro Kusumoto and Osamu Kusumoto
TOKYO, Japan, Sep 12 2023 (IPS)

 

SDGs and global governance

Sustainable development is the challenge of how to build a society in which humanity can live with dignity in this global environment. The SDGs set 17 goals and 169 targets to achieve sustainable development. Goals 16 and 17 are aimed precisely at building global governance through the formation of global rules. Goal 16 lists 10 specific targets, while Goal 17 lists 19 targets.

Sotaro Kusumoto

When a society functions with common values, it can be governed by non-verbal rules such as norms, but when the planet Earth, which is made up of diverse values, is regarded as a single society, it becomes necessary to govern it in the form of rules of law by explicit laws as common rules for the management of society. This is the condition for global governance by so-called global rules. However, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, there is little research on the nature of these global rules and how they should be constructed.

In order to answer this question, it is necessary to analyse the relationship between the legitimacy that defines the rules of governance in each country and the governance structure in the first place, and based on this analysis, identify issues and make proposals that can overcome these issues.

Laws of respective country and legitimacy

In modern societies, national laws are legislated under national constitutions. For example, the pros and cons of the death penalty are debated, but the essential reason why this is controversial is whether the fundamental question of on what grounds a person can deny the life of another person, even if he or she uses the institution of law, exists there. This question becomes clearer in the case of democracy. The epistemological question becomes whether the people, as sovereigns who constitute the sovereignty of the state, can take the lives of sovereigns on the basis of law, even if the law is legislated by parliamentarians elected through the system of elections.

In fact, the institution of the state is the only institution that can legally kill. International law recognises war as the final solution measures to international disputes. It is also regarded as a means of settling disputes over the sovereignty of states, recognised by international law, in the absence of any superior power.

Osamu Kusumoto

What is clear here is that the sovereignty of a state goes beyond the usual logical arguments and forms a value for the people, and the law of each country is founded on the fact that this value is not in question.

And the legitimacy of this rule is, surprisingly, provided for in the preamble of each country’s constitution. Even if there is no such statement in the preamble of the constitution, it is stipulated in the more fundamental texts of the fundamental law of each country, in the case of the UK in the Magna Carta, in the case of the US in the Declaration of Independence, and in the case of France in the Declaration of Human Rights.

The international order to date has made the values of the hegemonic powers, such as Pax Romana and Pax Britannica, the de facto rule. However, in an international community where diverse cultures and values exist, it is not possible to conduct global governance with the values of any one country as the global rules.

Possibility of global rules

Even though it is a difficult question how to set values, the legal conditions under which global rules can be established are relatively clear. Fairness, rationality, transparency, stability and predictability are required. A rule of law is established when people understand that the rule has validity.

The question is how to construct transcendental values that correspond to the sovereignty of people’s belief systems as values in the law of each country. The sociology of religion and the sociology of domination shows that the legitimacy of the transcendent rule of law, which forms the basis of the values of each country, is formed from the fact that the survival of the group is possible.

When we consider that humanity is an inhabitant of this fragile planet and that the idea of humanity as a community is at the root of the SDGs, and that our lives and the lives of others have equal value as the very basis of human rights, the legitimacy of global societal domination in the era of the SDGs must be based on sustainability, this means that the legitimacy of global society’s domination in the era of the SDGs must lie in sustainability.

Despite criticisms of idealism, the only logical solution to global governance is to create the conditions for its realisation.

Sotaro Kusumoto, Staff, Cabinet Office, Government of Japan
Osamu Kusumoto, Secretary General, Forum on Future Vison

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');  

Northern and Southern Trade Routes. Credit: European Space Agency

By Jan Lundius
STOCKHOLM, Sweden, Sep 12 2023 (IPS)

While climate change is relentlessly progressing, threatening life on earth, world leaders continue to meet while planning for a future where this immense menace to human existence remains a minor item on the agenda.

Recently, the BRICS countries held their 15th annual summit in Johannesburg. BRICS, an acronym for Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa, was in 2010 established as a collaboration group for these expanding economies. This year’s summit was of a particular interest since the G7 nations (Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Great Britain and the US) have been very critical of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, while BRICS nations have been less so.

Xi Jinping arrived in Johannesburg on his second international trip this year, after visiting Moscow in March. Xi was expected to deliver his remarks alongside other leaders, but his speech was actually read out by his commerce minister. It made thinly veiled attacks on the US, describing an unnamed country as “obsessed with maintaining hegemony, [it] has gone out of its way to cripple the emerging markets and developing countries.”

Since Vladimir Putin currently faces an arrest warrant for war crimes issued by the International Criminal Court, he was only present on wide screen. He also talked about “hegemony” while repeating his questionable reasons for the brutal attack on Ukraine: “Let me point out that it was the attempts by some countries to preserve their global hegemony that paved the way to the deep crisis in Ukraine. It started when an anti-constitutional government coup took place in this country with the help of the Western countries. This was followed by the unleashing of a war against people who refused to accept this coup. It was a cruel war, a war of extermination …”

Putin and Xi try to depict their nations’ politics as a counterpoise to the hegemonic strivings of the US and the EU. There are several signs that they consider themselves and their nations to be companions in the struggle.

During their meeting in Moscow this year, Xi said he hoped Putin would be victorious in next year’s presidential elections, since his “strong leadership had made good progress in development and rejuvenation”. Putin responded by stating that “Russia stands ready to continue to deepen bilateral, practical cooperation, step up communication and collaboration in international affairs and promote world multi-polarity and greater democracy in international relations.” A declaration sounding deceptive given what has happened in Xinjiang and Hong Kong, as well as in Chechnya and Ukraine. Nevertheless, Xi’s speech in Johannesburg was quite to the point when he declared: “We gather at a time when the world has entered a new period of turbulence and transformation. It is undergoing major shifts, division and regrouping, leading to more uncertain, unstable and unpredictable developments.”

So far, Beijing’s support to Russia has been pragmatic. Apparently following the guideline of “What’s in it for us”. Nevertheless, Russia is an unpredictable partner, recently demonstrated by the mysterious developments around Prigozhin and his Wagner Group. There are no signs that Xi’s support to his “dear friend Putin” is wavering. Even if Xi has not explicitly endorsed Russia’s war in Ukraine, there are no direct indications that he disapproves of it. Chinese TV continues to mainly show Russian media coverage of the Ukraine invasion and Xi has criticised the “expanding of military blocs” (read NATO) while continuously condemning “the abuse of international sanctions”.

Between June 2022 and June 2023, exports from China to Russia had increased by USD 4.55 billion (90.9 percent), from USD 5billion to USD 9.55 billion. China is currently Russia’s largest trade partner and Xi and Putin have pledged to boost trade to USD 200 billion in 2023, hailing their “no limits” partnership. During this year alone Chinese imports of crude petroleum from Russia has increased by USD 1.74 billion, or 69,8 percent, compared to last year, while import of coal briquettes increased with USD 444 million or 193 percent. No good news for climate change, especially considering that greenhouse gas emissions by China are currently the largest of any country in the world, with a yearly contribution of 13 gigatonnes – 25 percent of global emissions.

At the BICS summit, Putin mentioned that a new world-transforming initiative has begun in the far North: “the relevance of accelerated development of transcontinental routes such as the North-South corridor, which will connect Russian ports in the northern seas and the Baltic Sea with sea terminals in the Persian Gulf and the Indian Ocean, [these routes] will in the future facilitate annual transit of up to 30 million tonnes of cargo.”

What is happening in the far North? By the beginning of this century the scientific community coined a new phrase: “What happens in the Arctic does not stay in the Arctic”. Variations of that quote have been used to describe the effects of climate change, but now it is also increasingly involving financial endeavours and geopolitics.

Quite recently, actually in 1996, it became evident that climate shifts are both violent and extremely rapid – the Greenland Ice Sheet began to lose mass at an unprecedented speed. There were also reports that the permafrost was rapidly melting. In 2001, it was obvious that the retreat of the sea ice had become uncontrivable, leaving huge areas of the Artic Sea free of ice cover. This will probably have catastrophic consequences, not only for the Arctic flora and fauna, but for the entire world. As an example, around 15 percent of the Northern Hemisphere is covered by permafrost containing enormous amounts of dead biomass, which presently, at an ever-increasing speed, is emitting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, thus accelerating global warming. Strange effects of permafrost melting can be seen in Siberia, where methane build-ups under the tundra surface litter vast areas with bizarre earth mounds, which occasionally explode, leaving holes in the ground as deep as sixteen-story buildings.

However, this disastrous development also give rise to greed and exploitation. What Putin meant by a North-South corridor that will connect Russian ports in the northern seas with ports in the Persian Gulf and Indian Ocean is the realisation of an important phase of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), which is a Chinese global infrastructure development strategy adopted in 2013, meaning huge investments in more than 150 countries . It was thus no coincidence that China at the BRICS summit pushed for the inclusion of six more nations: Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Argentina. All these countries, except for Argentina, are directly affected by the maritime part of the BRI mentioned by Putin. Shipping lines through the Indian Ocean and the Mediterranean will be connected with a northern route through the now increasingly ice-free Northeast Passage between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans.

Huge projects connected with this initiative have already been initiated. New deep-water harbours are constructed outside Arkhangelsk and Vladivostok. Arkhangelsk is the largest city on Russia’s northern, European coast, while the port of Zarubino, south of Vladivostok, is close to China. Both harbours are ice-free the year around.

Furthermore, China and Russia are developing the huge Payakha oilfield at the Taymyr peninsula, in the northernmost part of Eurasia. Apart from establishing strategic connections along the Northeast Passage’s shipping line, the joint Russia-China BRI is now constructing a pipeline from Siberia to Vladivostok, while linking up Russia’s railway network and river systems with new developing sites in the North.

Russian shores cover 53 percent of the Arctic Ocean’s coastline and with the ice and tundra melting, problems are arising for the EU and the US. Closer contacts with the Middle East, Africa and China are probably beneficial for a Russia which is increasingly distant from the West, a cumbersome situation that makes Russian development and exploitation of the Arctic realm a priority. Diplomatic efforts have been made to improve relations with the governments of Greenland and the Faroe Islands, which still are under Danish sovereignty, in the sense that military security rests with the Danish Government, though they are semi-independent islands and are free to trade and foment investments on their own. While Russia now is crippled by the European condemnation of the Ukrainian invasion, Arctic nations like Iceland, Norway, Finland and Denmark dominated islands are free to open up to Chinese investment and trade agreements, thus also indirectly serving Russians interests.

China is interested in polar science, infrastructure, and natural resources, while Greenland is eager to attract foreign investment. China is Greenland’s largest foreign investor, with USD 2 billion in yearly investments accounting for more than 12 percent of the island‘s GDP. While Russia is exploiting its part of the Arctic and China is entering the game, the EU and the US are worried, and not the least NATO, whose spokesperson declared: “Whoever hold Greenland will hold the Arctic. Greenland is the most important strategic location in the Arctic and perhaps the world.”

Apart from the most extensive Arctic shoreline, Russia also has the advantage of the Lomonosov Ridge, which is a shallow underwater ridge stretching from the Russian mainland and across the North Pole. According to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, states have the exclusive right to exploit resources on and in the continental shelf, if the seabed is more than 370 kms wide and constitutes a “natural prolongation” of the territory of the nation claiming it. The Lomonosov Ridge is actually connected to Russian territory and in February 2013 the UN Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf approved most of Russia’s seabed claim in the Arctic Ocean.

Russia is currently increasing its military power in the Arctic – to enhance homeland defence, protect shipping lines and secure the exploitation of the Arctic’s natural resources. This while China is trying to purchase ports, airfields and other infrastructure that might support their investments in the Arctic.

NATO, in particular Canada and the US, are alarmed by this development and voices are raised claiming that these nations are far too late for participating in the race for the Arctic. NATO already hosts the Thule Airbase on Greenland, while the US and the Danish Ministry of Defence have a declared interest in the new international airports under construction in Nuuk and Ilulissat and in using Greenlandic ports as support bases for the US Navy. The US and the EU are trying to convince Greenland, Iceland and the Faroe Islands to remain within the West’s economic and military realm and limit their interest in cooperating with China and Russia.

Meanwhile, global warming in the Artic is continuing with an ever-increasing speed, while greenhouse gases continue to gather over the Northern Hemisphere. We are all moving towards a disastrous tipping point, where in a sudden blow the entire world ecosystem could change for the worst and make the earth almost uninhabitable. This while humans continue to fight each other and world leaders squabble about who is going to rule over the Arctic and dominate the world. “What happens in the Arctic does not stay in the Arctic”.

IPS UN Bureau

 

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

Credit: UNFPA/Marielle Sander
 
Women’s bodies should not be held captive to choices made by governments or individuals, the UN Population Fund (UNFPA) said, as it launched its flagship State of the World’s Population Report for 2023, released April 2023. According to the UN, more than half of global population growth between now and 2050 is expected to occur in Africa. Africa has the highest rate of population growth among major areas. The population of sub-Saharan Africa is projected to double by 2050. A rapid population increase in Africa is anticipated even if there is a substantial reduction of fertility levels in the near future.

By Dorothy Akongo, Flata Mwale and Vivian Mugarisi
KAMPALA/LUSAKA/HARARE, Sep 12 2023 (IPS)

Almost 30 years ago in 1994, the world witnessed a historic event as 179 nations convened on African soil, in Cairo, for the International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD).

In an unprecedented moment of collective action, Heads of State adopted a revolutionary Programme of Action and called for women’s reproductive health and rights to take center stage in national and global development efforts.

This summer, in another first, the Women Deliver Conference had its annual meeting in Kigali, Rwanda. As the largest conference on gender equality in the world with 6,000 in-person delegates and a further 200,000 remote participants, the event was a welcome symbol of Africa’s commitment to the rights of women and girls.

Despite this, it was frustrating to witness echoes of the global pushback currently plaguing the reproductive justice movement and how decades of progress on sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) continue to face assault.

Speaking at the opening ceremony, the Hungarian President drew controversy for championing her ‘pro-family’ ideals in sharp contrast to the purpose that had united many of the delegates present.

President Katalin Novák, a key player in the movement opposing women’s and girls’ rights, notably access to safe and legal abortion, has publicly asserted that Hungarian women “should not compete with men” or expect to earn equal pay. She publicly envisioned her teenage daughter being empowered to choose a path of mothering a substantial number of children, “even 10 children if she chooses to”.

As part of a 40-women delegation from the Women in Global Health network, we experienced the clash firsthand. Three decades since Cairo, and the struggle for women’s and girls’ rights continues, but as African health professionals and agents of change in the systems we deliver, so does our determination to sustain progress on the continent.

We have much to be proud of. In November 2021, Benin’s Parliament voted to legalize abortion in most circumstances. The Democratic Republic of the Congo, the first country in Francophone Africa to do so, expanded access to abortion care, and endorsed guidelines to implement the directives of the African Protocol on the Rights of Women (the Maputo Protocol).

In July 2022, Sierra Leone took steps to modernize outdated abortion laws following decades of advocacy by the women’s movement and government officials.

Despite these advances, women and adolescent girls in Africa continue to have some of the world’s highest maternal death and morbidity rates. With low access to modern contraceptive methods and quality, safe and legal abortion, stalling progress means life and death for many women and girls.

The COVID-19 pandemic revealed the failure of many governments to integrate a gender-responsive approach in national health systems on SRHR. During the emergency response, SRHR services were not always deemed essential and sidelined, resulting in a surge of gender-based violence, unintended pregnancies and unsafe abortions.

Access to modern contraception and reproductive health, fundamental to determining whether and how many children to have, when and with whom, remains inaccessible for many adolescent girls and women. Quality, safe abortion care is a right. Restrictions on abortion do not eliminate abortion; they only eliminate safe abortions, resulting in women’s deaths.

According to global estimates up to 10 million more girls will be at risk of becoming child brides in the next decade as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Reports also indicate that though all women and girls globally face discrimination in laws, social norms and practices, women and girls in Africa bear the highest share of discrimination in terms of intra-household dynamics and caregiving roles, working environments including harmful practices such as domestic violence and female genital mutilation.

Women health workers are grossly underrepresented in health leadership and this is a key factor in the current push back on SRHR. Women comprise the majority of the health workforce, given they are 70 percent of the overall workforce globally and 90 percent of frontline staff, yet they occupy just 25 percent of leadership roles.

For lower- and middle-income regions such as Africa, the percentage of women in leadership is as low as five percent. As the majority of frontline health professionals, women health workers have a deeper understanding of the health needs of their communities including SRHR needs. This power imbalance at decision-making tables excludes their valuable experiences and expertise to shape policies and programs that adequately address the health needs of women and girls.

Compounding this, 70% of women in Africa are said to be excluded financially, with an estimated gap of $42 billion between men and women. Around six million women work unpaid and underpaid in core health systems roles, effectively subsidizing global health.

Health and care are essential employment sectors for women and have the potential to unlock gender transformative lessons for the rest of the economy by addressing systemic biases that hinder women’s empowerment. Investing in the health workforce, the majority of whom are women, is a sound investment with potential gains for health systems, social change, and economic growth.

The role of women health workers delivering SRHR services in health systems cannot be overestimated. Women health workers typically counsel and support women and girls in accessing a range of modern contraceptives and in dealing with high-risk or unwanted pregnancy.

They brave violence and harassment from anti-rights protestors at quality, safe abortion facilities. They face online abuse and threats when expressing views in favor of SRHR, especially safe abortion.

As a platform, the Women Deliver Conference provided an opportunity for gender advocates and Civil Society Organizations to amplify efforts towards promoting a gender-responsive agenda among policy players and government leaders. While several countries have ratified human rights declarations over the years, not enough has been done to live up to the promise of making gender equality a reality.

Women’s movements and their allies are pivotal for mobilizing the necessary political will needed to drive progress on SRHR. As members of Women in Global Health, a movement challenging power and privilege for gender equity in health, we are calling on political and global health leaders to establish the following:

1. Gender responsive UHC that ensures all people have access to the services they need, when they need them including access to sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) for women and girls.
2. Gender Equal and diverse leadership in Global Health based on Gender Transformative Leadership. This offers equal opportunities for women to lead in health and contribute to shaping health systems and health policies that are gender responsive. This is critical if we are to achieve health for all.
3. Gender equity in emergency preparedness and response. We are calling for continuation of essential health services, including SRHR, and the protection of health workers to be central in these political agreements.

Movements such as ours are pivotal in building allyship between health workers and national leaders in the delivery of SRHR while also safeguarding health outcomes for future generations. Across Africa, reducing health inequities and maternal mortalities is of paramount concern.

African countries have the opportunity to secure the foundation for just societies and health for all, what we need now is to hold firm against the global pushback on reproductive rights and deliver on the promises made to women and girls.

This article was authored by Members of the African Women in Global Health network:
Dorothy Akongo, Research and Advocacy Manager, Busoga Health Forum and Coordinator, Uganda Chapter; Flata Mwale, Global Health Professional and Deputy Country Lead, Zambia Chapter; Vivian Mugarisi, Public Health Communications Specialist, Zimbabwe Chapter.

IPS UN Bureau

 

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

Credit: United Nations

By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Sep 12 2023 (IPS)

Everyone in this world is entitled to 15 minutes of fame– is a legendary quote mis-attributed to the American pop icon Andy Warhol.

Over the years, the United Nations has laid down its own 15-minute rule for world leaders addressing the UN General Assembly.

And this year is no exception, as the UN readies to host over 150+ world leaders at the high-level segment of the 78th session of the General Assembly, beginning September 19.

In a message to Ambassadors and heads of missions in New York, Movses Abelian, Under-Secretary-General for General Assembly and Conference Management says: “I would like to take this opportunity to emphasize that, in accordance with existing practice at the general debate, a voluntary 15-minute time limit should be observed and the list of speakers has been prepared on the basis of a 15-minute statement by each delegation.”

But as tradition and protocol demands, it is member states, including political leaders and ambassadors, who reign supreme at the United Nations, not the Secretary-General or senior UN officials.

And no president of the General Assembly, the UN’s highest policy-making body, has the right to interrupt or curtail the prerogative of a president or prime minister to speak uninterruptedly—at his or her own pace.

In a bygone era, the UN installed a light on the speaker’s rostrum that kept flashing when a head of state or head of government went beyond the 15-minute limit.

President Ranesinghe Premadasa of Sri Lanka, who was apparently alerted about this, pulled out his handkerchief, covered the flashing light and continued to speak.

The following year, Cuba’s Fidel Castro, known for his long-winded speeches, pulled off the same stunt with a dramatic flair waving the handkerchief –as delegates cheered him and greeted his gesture with loud laughter.

The two political leaders had momentarily outsmarted the UN bureaucracy.

The all-time records for speech-making at the General Assembly have continued to be held by Castro, Nikita Khrushchev of the Soviet Union, Sékou Touré of Guinea, Muammar al-Qadhafi of Libya and President Soerkano of Indonesia.

The longest speech was made by Castro at the 872nd plenary meeting of the General Assembly on 26 September 1960. The time listed was an all-time-high of 269 minutes, according to the archives in the UN’s Dag Hammarskjold Library.

Other long speeches at the General Assembly included:

• Sékou Touré, President of Guinea, 144 minutes on 10 October 1960;
• Nikita Khrushchev – USSR – Chairman of the Council of Ministers, 140 minutes on 23 September 1960;
• Dr. Soekarno, President of Indonesia, 121 minutes on 30 September 1960; and
• Colonel Muammar al-Qadhafi of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, 96 minutes on 23 September 2009.

The flamboyant Qadhafi, made a rare historic visit to the UN in September 2009, accompanied by political fanfare—and his usual team of female body guards.

In its report, the London Guardian said he “grabbed his 15 minutes of fame at the UN building in New York and ran with it. He ran with it so hard he stretched it to an hour and 40 minutes, six times longer than his allotted slot, to the dismay of UN organizers”.

“Qadhafi fully lived up to his reputation for eccentricity, bloody-mindedness and extreme verbiage”, said the Guardian, “as he tore up a copy of the UN charter in front of startled delegates, accused the Security Council of being an al-Qaida like terrorist body, called for (US President) George Bush and (UK Prime Minister) Tony Blair to be put on trial for the Iraq war, demanded $7.7 trillion in compensation for the ravages of colonialism on Africa, and wondered whether swine flu was a biological weapon created in a military laboratory.”

Still, according to the Guinness Book of World Records, the longest statement ever made at the UN was delivered by Krishna Menon of India. His statement to the Security Council was during three meetings in January 1957, lasting more than 8 hours.

According to AsiaNet, Menon, “one of the best statesmen India has ever produced”, made that marathon speech, blasting Pakistan over the disputed territory of Kashmir.

The transcript of the speech ran to 160 pages.

During the speech, Menon collapsed midway and had to be revived. But he returned to the Council chamber and continued to attack Pakistan for another hour.

But in recent years, there were no such dramatic moments either in the Security Council or the General Assembly.

At most international conferences, the host country has the privilege of being the first speaker on day one.

However, a longstanding tradition gives pride of place to Brazil followed by the US as the second speaker for the opening day, this time it would be President Joe Biden.

During an official visit to Brasilia, I asked one of the senior Brazilian officials about the origins of the tradition. And he told me “Even we don’t why we continue to be the number one speaker”

In those days, most countries were reluctant to be the first to address the chamber, according to a published report. Brazil, at the time, was the only country that volunteered to speak first.

Some say that the tradition dates back to 1947, when Brazil’s top diplomat Oswaldo Aranha presided over the Assembly’s First Special Session.

https://www.ipsnews.net/2023/09/un-came-attack-mis-guided-rocket-launcher/

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');  

Protection is paramount to ensure that processes run smoothly during High-Level week. Credit: Shutterstock

By Mollie Fraser-Andrews
GENEVA, Switzerland, Sep 11 2023 (IPS)

The United Nations Security and Safety Service is the Division charged with the strategic management of safety and security operations at Headquarters, Offices away from Headquarters, Regional Commissions, and International Tribunals.

As part of its daily role, the Service enables a safe and secure operating environment for UN activities and high-level events such as the UN General Assembly (UNGA). With the UNGA now in progress, we take you behind the scenes to what it takes to prepare for High-Level week which begins September 19.

The UN security officers are at the front and center of this event, and they undertake their roles of safeguarding dozens of world leaders with the utmost seriousness, professionalism, and experience garnered from their daily responsibilities.

Rodrigo Victor da Paixão, Deputy Chief of the Security and Safety Service, notes, “On any given day of the year at the UNHQ, we might have several VVIPs or Heads of State/Government coming in. We practically do a mini-GA every day,” he adds with a smile.

“From a UN Security point of view, it is all about building on what we do all year round and scaling up for GA week. September witnesses intensified efforts due to the sheer volume of participants”, he mentions.

The number and level of participants call for a strengthened security posture, as per any event in the international arena. This involves flying in additional UN security officers from other duty stations to reinforce the New York staff.

As a National Special Security Event (NSSE) that requires full protective, crisis management, incident response, and counterterrorism capabilities at all levels, from local to the federal government, the UNGA is recognized by the host government as having both national and international significance.

The host government deploys the full power of its law enforcement and emergency response, often incorporating around 17 or 18 distinct US agencies led by the Secret Service.

Security measures are tightened around the UNHQ building during the High-Level segment. Credit: UNDSS Gallery

Preparations for the UNGA

In a sense, the GA never really ends. Da Paixão explains that “For us, it never stops. The day after the last event of the GA High-Level week, we are already preparing for next year, through reviewing lessons learned and how we can do it better next time.”

For all that, there is a process specific to each year’s GA with the stopwatch beginning in May. “That’s when we start doing our first internal coordination meetings. At first it is one every other week, then starting in July, every week,” Da Paixão notes.

Various drills are conducted in July and August, ranging from fire drills to mock medical emergencies to diverse mass casualty scenarios like terrorist attacks, natural disasters, etc. “We have a thorough plan in place in the event that we need to transport several people to the hospital at once. There is also close cooperation with the NYC fire department, our medical service, and hospitals nearby,” Da Paixão says, “We have prepared for all the worst-case scenarios.”

A specific security risk assessment for the UNGA is prepared by the SSS-NY Crisis Management and Strategic Planning Unit, in consultation with the relevant host country law enforcement authorities. Red Team exercises are conducted by various SSS teams to account for any vulnerabilities and implement mitigating measures.

In addition, a Security Operations Plan with evacuation, emergency, and safety plans is also prepared and updated continuously, along with various security concepts and needs analysis for the event that prompts a review of all procedures in place and safety inspections. Additional checkpoints are coordinated with NYPD to extend the outer perimeter to Second Avenue.

Bomb sweeps of the complex are also conducted before and during the event in coordination with the host country. SSS also coordinates and reviews with NYPD the traffic patterns outside the UN premises and manages vehicles and motorcade access and movement inside the complex.

The Special Services Unit (SSU) provides close protection to visiting dignitaries in coordination with host country agencies and visiting national security elements accompanying the VVIPs while on UN premises. SSU also liaises and provides briefings and walk-throughs for security counterparts before the GA.

Security briefings are crucial for the smooth running of the General Assembly session. Credit: UN Photo/Eskinder Debele

During the GA

Months of efforts culminate at the UNGA High-Level week. Statistics from the previous year UNGA-77 revealed screening of a total of 55,580 persons and 67,698 items, with the daily highest record of 13,508 persons and 13,165 items.

The Pass and ID Unit issued a total of 146,940 ground and overlay passes with around 43% (9,524) ground passes, 38% (8,404) mission overlay passes, 16% (3,645) staff overlay passes and 3% (546) media passes.

The Special Services Unit assisted Member States in providing safety and security to 140 Heads of State (HOS) and Heads of Government (HOG), 63 Foreign Ministers (FMs), and 34 other VIPs. To add, 745 motorcades were allowed into the UNHQ compound with their 86 high and medium threat level HOS/HOG representatives, while 73 of them requested walkthrough escorts through the UN compound.

Furthermore, a Joint Operation Center is set up at the UN for the High-Level week, where various US agencies continuously coordinate with the UN Security representatives to e
nsure the smooth operation of the event.

“The GA entails more than its central proceedings. Numerous side events, dinners, and themed events and functions occur concurrently. This year, for instance, will feature the Sustainable Development Goal summit,” Paixão says. “This will bring in a lot more people and it is going to be a lot busier than a regular GA.”

Mollie Fraser-Andrews is Editorial Coordinator, UN TODAY.

Source: UN TODAY, the official magazine of international civil servants, Geneva

The link to the website: https://untoday.org/

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');  

Farmers have improved their income by rearing Gramapriya poultry, which is environmentally friendly and organic. Credit: Umar Manzoor Shah/IPS

By Umar Manzoor Shah
TELANGANA, INDIA, Sep 11 2023 (IPS)

Even after toiling hard for an entire year, Shivaji Rao, a 37-year-old farmer, would find it hard to cover the basic expenses of his family.

He cultivates maize from his one-and-a-half-acre land in India’s Southern State of Telangana.

Roa told IPS that the prices of fertilisers and seeds in his home state have skyrocketed to the extent that it is herculean to even think of buying them in adequate quantity.

“The changes in climate, on the other hand, is wreaking havoc on poor farmers like us. The untimely rainfall, the drought-like situation coupled with the scarcity of irrigation facilities is leaving us high and dry to the core,” Roa said.

In a remote village of the state called Aseefabad, another farmer, namely Bhagwan Nath, shares a similar predicament.

He says besides farming, he does menial jobs like day labour at some government-sponsored construction sites to make ends meet.

However, the farmer who grows redgram (a type of legume) from a one-acre field says the farming and the daily paid labour aren’t enough to suffice his family’s needs.

“I mean, we have children who deserve better education. I need to send my kids to a good school so that they can get a quality education, but doing so needs money. I am not earning enough,” Bhaghwan told IPS.

There are scores of other farmers in the hamlet sharing the same tale and facing the same ordeal.

Nominally, their monthly incomes do not go beyond a mere 15 to 20 thousand rupees (180-240 USD).

Climate change in the region has been severely affecting the farmers with the late arrival of monsoons and sudden unexpected heat waves occurring.

“This drastic change in the weather pattern damages the crops beyond repair. At times, a year of hard work gets wasted with one single blow of wind. Further, the cost of seeds and fertilisers is adding to our predicament. It is turning us insane,” sighs Shivaji.

As per the government records, the hamlet, during February and March, experienced temperatures higher than the norm.

Typically, elevated temperatures result in increased moisture capacity of the air, often leading to the formation of thunderstorms. The temperatures in the hamlet surpassed 35°C, facilitating the absorption of moisture from the Bay of Bengal, culminating in the development of a depression.

Reports show that over the past decade, the area has encountered unprecedented weather occurrences – believed to be both climate-change-induced and because of rapid urbanisation in the region.

To mitigate the suffering of the farmers of this remote village, a few non-government organisations have visited the farmers, and this resulted in discussions around opportunities for marginalised farmers for self-sustaining livelihood and climate-resilient agricultural practices through community-owned processes.

One of the NGOs mooted the idea of pollution-free poultry farming for these farmers.

Along with other farmers, Roa and Bhagwan enrolled for the program. Each farmer received 40 chicks of the Gramapriya breed, with a mature weight ranging from 1.5 to 2 kilograms. The poultry rearing was environmentally friendly, ensuring that there was no odour emanating from the shed. This approach not only resulted in wholesome meat and eggs for the farmer’s family due to the organic nature of the produce but also generated supplementary income through the sale of organic meat, eggs, and compost derived from the bedding.

The training provided to farmers included instructions on formulating appropriate feed for the chicks, enabling them to be ready for the local market within just four months. One farmer, Bhagwan, has already sold ten birds weighing a total of 18 kilograms, earning an extra income of Rs 5400 (70 USD) at a rate of Rs 300 (4 USD) per kilogram over a span of nine months. Additionally, he has sold 200 eggs at Rs 5 each, resulting in an income of Rs 1000.

Moreover, Bhagwan is implementing a breeding strategy by using local chicks to hatch PFPF eggs, thereby multiplying the poultry population on his PFPF farm.

As a result of this new PFPF initiative, his annual earnings have increased by Rs 6400 (80 USD). In total, Bhagwanath’s annual income has risen from Rs 35,000 to Rs 40,000 (about 420 to 480 USD) within a few months due to these efforts.

Roa says that the poultry he has received has also helped him receive extra income and make a good living.

“Now, I am not entirely dependent upon farming. The poultry is what keeps me hopeful. I am planning to put in extra effort in this business and make a good living out of it.”

Roa says within three months, he has been able to earn more than 50 thousand rupees (700 USD) from selling organic eggs and chicken in the market.

“There is a growing demand for organic food, and people really like what I sell. They are quite responsive to it,” Roa said.

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

• Empowering Women in Assam: Livestock Farming Brings Economic Relief Post-COVID
• Quest for Safe Water in One of India’s Most Isolated Villages
• Indian Christians Seek Equal Rights for Dalit Converts

Girls in an informal school in Idlib, Syria. This ECW-supported school is providing much-needed education and psychosocial support to children affected by years of brutal conflict and recent earthquakes. © UNICEF/Fricker

By Joyce Chimbi
UNITED NATIONS & NAIROBI, Sep 8 2023 (IPS)

In a world set on fire by climate change and brutal conflict, millions of children in emergencies and protracted crises need educational support. Children in 48 out of 49 African countries are at high or extremely high risk of the impacts of climate change, particularly in the Central African Republic, Chad, Nigeria, Guinea, Somalia, and Guinea Bissau.

“We have reached catastrophic proportions of 224 million children today in conflict and other humanitarian crises in need of education support. Financial needs for education in emergencies within humanitarian appeals have nearly tripled over the last three years – from US$1.1 billion in 2019 to almost US$3 billion at the end of 2022. In 2022, only 30 percent of education requirements were funded, indicating a widening gap,” Education Cannot Wait (ECW) Executive Director Yasmine Sherif tells IPS.

Released today ahead of this month’s UN General Assembly and SDG Summit in New York, ECW’s ‘With Hope and Courage: 2022 Annual Results Report’ is a deep dive into the challenges, opportunities, key trends, and vast potential that “education for all” offers as nations across the globe race to deliver on the promises outlined in the SDG’s, Paris Agreement and other international accords.

Sherif stresses that as nations worldwide celebrate International Literacy Day – and the power of education to build sustainable and peaceful societies- ECW calls on world leaders to scale up financial support to reach vulnerable children in need, especially those furthest left behind. As more and more children are plunged into humanitarian crises, there is a widening funding gap as the needs have skyrocketed over recent years.

The report sends an urgent appeal for additional financing – featuring the latest trends in education in emergencies. It also shows the fund’s progress with UN and civil society partners in advancing quality education, particularly Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 4 for vulnerable girls and boys in humanitarian crises worldwide to access inclusive, quality, safe education.

“While the number of out-of-school children in situations of conflict, climate-induced disasters, and as refugees is skyrocketing – funding is not keeping up with the snowballing crisis. But even in these unfortunate circumstances, the report has a positive message. ECW and its global strategic partners have reached 8.8 million children with quality, holistic education since its 2016 inception and more than 4.2 million in 2022 alone. The only reason we have not reached more children is insufficient funding. We have mobilized over $1.5 billion to date, and we need another $670 million to reach 20 million children by the end of our 2023-2026 strategic plan,” she observes.

Sherif emphasizes that the global community must ensure that girls and boys impacted by armed conflicts, climate-induced disasters, and forced displacement are not left behind but rather placed at the forefront for an inclusive and continued quality education. Education is the foundation for sustainable and peaceful societies.

“Our annual report demonstrates that it is possible to deliver safe, inclusive, quality education with proven positive learning outcomes in countries affected by conflict and to refugees. ECW has done it through strategic partnerships with host governments, government donors, the private sector, philanthropic foundations, UN agencies, civil society, local organizations, and other key stakeholders,” she explains.

“Together, we have delivered quality education to 9 million children and adolescents impacted by crises. The systems are in place, including a coordination structure; with more funding, we can reach more girls and boys in humanitarian crises around the world in places such as the Sahel, South Sudan, Yemen, Syria, and Latin America and enable girls to access community-based secondary education in Afghanistan. We have a proven efficient and effective funding model of delivering the promise of education.”

ECW has thus far financed education programmes across 44 countries and crisis settings. Of the 4.2 million children reached in 2022, 21 percent were refugees, and 14 percent were internally displaced. When the COVID-19 pandemic shut down schools across the globe, ECW repositioned its programming and supported distance learning, life-saving access to water and sanitation facilities, and other integrated supports – reaching an additional 32.2 million children.

ECW’s commitment to gender equality and tackling the gender gap in education is bearing fruit. Towards the fund’s goal of 60 percent girls reached in all its investments, girls represent over 50 percent of all children reached in 2022.

In 2022, ECW’s rapid First Emergency Responses to new or escalating crises included a strong focus on the climate crisis through grants for the drought in Eastern Africa and floods in Pakistan and Sudan. ECW also approved new funding in response to the war in Ukraine and renewed violence in the Lake Chad Region and Ethiopia.

“On scaling up funding for education, the report shows funding for education in emergencies was higher than ever before in 2022, and that total available funding has grown by more than 57 percent over just three years – from US$699 million in 2019 to more than US$1.1 billion in 2022,” Sherif explains.

With support from ECW’s key strategic donor partners – including Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States, as the top-three contributors among 25 in total, and visionary private sector partners like The LEGO Foundation – US$826 million was announced at the ECW High-Level Financing Conference in early 2023.

In addition, collective resource mobilization efforts from all partners and stakeholders at global, regional, and country levels helped unlock an additional US$842 million of funding for education in emergencies and protracted crises, which contributed to alignment with ECW’s Multi-Year Resilience Programmes in 22 countries.

To date, some of ECW’s largest and prospective bilateral and multilateral donors have not yet committed funding for the full 2023–2026 period, and there remains a gap in funding from the private sector, foundations, and philanthropic donors. In the first half of 2023, ECW faces a funding gap of approximately US$670 million to fully finance results under the Strategic Plan 2023–2026, which will reach 20 million children over the next three years.
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

• #AfghanGirlsVoices Campaign to Elevate Voices of Young Afghan Girls on Global Stage
• Financing Biggest Hurdle to Providing Children with Quality Education in Crisis Situations – ECW
• Khartoum is Falling – the Global Community Must Move Fast to Protect Children in their Darkest Moments

The time is ripe to transform American agriculture from monoculture heavy farming and food systems to diversified cropping and food systems with a variety of crops including specialty crops. Credit: Bigstock.

By Esther Ngumbi
URBANA, Illinois, USA, Sep 8 2023 (IPS)

A few weeks ago, my husband and I drove from Illinois to Iowa to visit a friend. I was excited about my over 5 hours’ drive. Sadly, 60 minutes into the drive, my excitement fiddled out. I was bored.  Field after field, as far as my eyes could see, all I saw was either corn or soybean. I also noticed that the field margins were empty-with no sight of wildflowers.

Unfortunately, growing singular crop species, also known as monocropping, in which, all plants are genetically similar or identical over vast acres of land, is prevalent across the U.S. Midwest and North America because of current problematic policies that incentivizes the overproduction of crops such as corn, soybeans, cotton and wheat.

In 2023, for example, over 90 million of acres of corn and 82 million acres of soybean are being grown, accounting for almost over 70% of the planted farmland in the United States according to the United States Department of Agriculture.

In 2023, for example, over 90 million of acres of corn and 82 million acres of soybean are being grown, accounting for almost over 70% of the planted farmland in the United States according to the United States Department of Agriculture

Not only has this system resulted into the overproduction of a few crop species, it has also resulted in a biodiversity loss including a reduction in insect diversity.

In addition, monoculture cropping systems have led to increases of many unsustainable and environmental damaging practices by farmers including the use of pesticides and fertilizers. Furthermore, monocropping contributes to pollinators death and reduces the biodiversity of soil dwelling microorganisms, including beneficial soil microbes that underpin soil and crop health while harming the U.S. waterways. Undoubtedly, the current monocropping agricultural system prevalent in North America is unsustainable.

The time is ripe to diversify U.S. Midwest farms and farms across America. Diversified agriculture and farming systems are a set of methods and tools developed to produce food sustainably by leveraging ecological diversity at plot, field and landscape scales.

There are several strategies including incorporating diverse crop rotations, intercropping, cover cropping, and agroforestry.

Indeed, the time is ripe to transform American agriculture from monoculture heavy farming and food systems to diversified cropping and food systems with a variety of crops including specialty crops. The time is ripe to consider planting pollinator strips and filling the field margins with wildflowers. There are many benefits that can emerge if American agriculture were to diversify.

First, there is long-term evidence that shows that diversifying crop systems can increase agricultural resilience to the extremities and disturbances that come along with a changing climate including drought, heat waves, insect pest outbreaks and flooding.

Second, diversified cropping systems can improve soil fertility and soil health, lower pressure of pests and weeds.

Third, diversified agroecosystems will also become home to biologically diversified species including insect species that predate on insect pests. This will ultimately become a strategy to reduce the usage of harmful pesticides and support sustainable insect control.

Indeed, recent scientific evidence reaffirms that diversification promotes multiple ecosystem services including pollination, pest control and water regulation without compromising yields.

There is glimmer of hope that a wave of change is beginning.

Several agencies, including Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (SARE), the US Forest Service, National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, are promoting different crop diversification strategies and highlighting the benefits that come with cropping systems diversification.

According to SARE, for example, diversifying cropping systems can lead to many benefits including spreading farmers economic risks, exploiting profitable niche markets and creating new industries based on agriculture that can make communities competitive while strengthening and enhancing quality of life, and ultimately, aid the domestic economy.

It is encouraging that research funding agencies such as the United States Department of Agriculture are funding research aiming to diversify cropping systems in the Midwest and across America. Purdue University, for example, was awarded a $10 million grant to diversify the Corn Belt.  Corteva recently posted a call for proposals that propose novel solutions to enable intercropping practices for agricultural intensification.

Complementing funding is the beginning of curation of datasets and comprehensive meta-analysis studies documenting outcomes of diversified farming practices including for biodiversity, yields, and economic returns.

These datasets that also showcase diversification as a pathway to more sustainable agricultural production serve as a resource for researchers, farmers, and practitioners since they pinpoint where diversified systems have effectively contributed to sustainable food production outcomes without compromising the economic returns.

Of course, to facilitate the shift in paradigm from monocropping to diversified cropping systems, we must confront the barriers to cropping system diversification  including lack of equipment to facilitate farming of other crops and  lack of a niche market for alternative crops.

At the root of this wave of change is the need to change the agricultural policies to promote diversified farming. Removing commodity crop subsides and reallocating the money to farms that practice diversified farming is one strategy that can accomplish this.

Changing these systems will take everyone including farmers, legislators, scientists, and advocates.

Diversifying America’s cropping and food systems is critical to meeting American food security needs and strengthening it in the face of climate change. Diversifying American agriculture will also help in keeping America as a model country to be emulated. It is a win-win for everyone.

 

Patient Kyahi, principal of Sake Elementary School, in front of the blackboard in his mud-filled classroom in Sake, a village located 27 km from the city of Goma, North Kivu province in DRC. Credit: Sibylle Desjardins / Climate Visuals

By Abigail Van Neely and Naureen Hossain
NEW YORK, Sep 8 2023 (IPS)

Individually and collectively, member countries of the G20 are falling far behind in their greenhouse gas reduction goals and are failing to make the significant cuts on emissions that would be needed to keep global temperatures low, despite possessing the technological and financial capabilities for reducing emissions.

And with the hottest summer on record ending, United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres says, “climate breakdown has begun.”

G20 countries, which have both the largest economies and highest amounts of greenhouse gas emissions, committed to reducing emissions by 2030 to limit global heating. A new paper from Oxfam finds that their goals are not ambitious enough.

“G20 countries – both collectively, and almost all of them individually – are failing to achieve their fair share of ambitious global mitigation required to limit global heating to 1.5℃,” Oxfam reports, noting that 63 percent of the world’s population lives in the G20 countries, producing 78 percent of greenhouse gasses. The amount of carbon dioxide emitted yearly by each person in these countries must be cut in half by 2030 to stay on target. However, current plans are not on track to meet the global goal.

According to Oxfam, “richer G20 nations are performing worst of all.”

Oxfam notes that high-income countries have focused on increasing the climate efforts of low and middle-income countries without addressing their own failures to pledge to do their share. For instance, to proportionally contribute to reducing global emissions, the United States would have to enhance its current reduction target by an additional 240 percent. Oxfam determined these shortfalls using three different measurement tools that assess the fairness and ambition of countries’ current reduction targets.

“The richest G7 and G20 countries need to ramp up their own domestic climate ambition and radically increase climate finance to make up for historic emissions. This is not only a matter of equity – without it, we will never achieve the life-saving goals of the Paris Agreement,” Oxfam climate change policy lead, Nafkote Dabi, said.

The G20 members, which include high-income countries such as the United States, Australia, and Germany, account for 78 percent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions. High-income are emitting the equivalent of 7.4 to 7.7 tons of CO2 on average per person. The Oxfam report indicates that their emissions need to be reduced by half – 2.9 to 3.8 tons – by 2030. It reflects a failure in their domestic pledges in their countries and their international commitments. Overall, the high-income countries were found to be among the worst emitters of greenhouse gases per annum.

A lack of financing has prevented many countries from achieving their climate goals. According to Oxfam, middle-income countries like South Africa, China, and Mexico have both lower historic responsibility for climate change and less financial capabilities to address its effects.

Middle-income G20 countries, such as India, Türkiye, Indonesia, and South Africa, are currently emitting close to 6.1 to 6.3 tons of CO2 per person per year. They would need to reduce this to 4 to 5.8 tons of CO2 per person. The report observes that while they have also failed to meet their global mitigation ambitions, in certain cases, these countries lack the financing capacity to address these issues.

Therefore, these ‘developing’ countries could rightly seek out the climate financing contributions that would be needed to meet these pledges. This is where the high-income G20 members would also be able to comply with global mitigation by increasing their contributions to international climate finance, thereby supporting the mitigation efforts of middle-to-lower-income countries. Under the metrics for fair sharing of mitigation efforts, this would also allow them all to meet global mitigation levels.

The Oxfam report has been published at a critical time as world leaders gear up to converge at summits in which climate action will undoubtedly be on the agenda as they reassess their progress on the Sustainable Development Goals. The leaders of the G20 countries will be convening in India for the G20 Summit on 9-10 September.

Ahead of the upcoming UN Climate Change Conference in November, the G20 and other countries will be expected to present their upcoming climate action pledges for the Paris Agreement’s Global Stocktake for 2023. It will serve as a turning point where it will be determined whether they are on track to achieving the goals under the Paris Agreement.

There is also the upcoming Climate Ambition Summit on 20 September that the UN Secretary-General will convene amid the 78th session of the UN General Assembly. It will be expected that world governments, but especially major emitters, will present updated climate action plans and NDCs.

Ashfaq Khalfan, Oxfam America’s Director of Climate Justice, explains that countries in the global south need massive long-term investments to quickly replace fossil fuel energy with renewable energies. According to Khalfan, the current UN budget of USD 100 billion a year to fund all climate change projects is “a gross underestimate.” Adequate funding would be between 1 to 2 trillion dollars.

The UN predicts that if more ambitious action is not taken, there will be a 10 percent rise in emissions by 2030 instead of the 45 percent cut needed to reach the target of the Paris Agreement. If global heating rises beyond 1.5℃, Khalfan says, half a million people will face water insecurity, ecosystems will be destroyed, and there will be unprecedented levels of extreme heat. To avoid these risks, Khalfan suggests that the public become more radical about putting pressure on their governments to act, especially in high-income countries.

Guterres will have an opportunity to call out leaders whose climate pledges are insufficient when he attends the G20 summit in India this weekend. In November, countries will submit their latest climate action pledges at the UN Climate Summit in Dubai.

“Governments really need to basically say either we are accepting catastrophic climate change because we’re not willing to provide the resources, or we’re not willing to accept catastrophic climate change, and we’re willing to provide the resources. It has to be one or the other,” Khalfan said.

“With less than three months to go before this crucial climate stocktake is published, we call out the G20 for their failure of ambition and action. Unless G20 countries substantially improve their NDCs, they are effectively spelling ‘surrender’ in the face of the existential crisis of our times,” said Dabi.

“People living in poverty and in lower-income countries are suffering most. We look to the world’s super-emitters for solutions but find today their numbers simply don’t stack up.”

In the coming weeks, the world will be watching its leaders to see if they will be able to take the drastic but necessary actions to shoulder the responsibility of climate action.

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

• Moving From Trauma to Healing: Practicing Self-Care in Refugee Camps
• Education is a ‘Life-Saving Intervention’ in Emergencies, says South Sudan’s Education Minister

Shinkiari, Pakistan

By Vanessa Steinmayer and Simon Graham
BANGKOK, Thailand, Sep 8 2023 (IPS)

In Asia and the Pacific, migration is again on the rise. In 2020, almost 109 million people lived in a country other than that of their birth. They represented 2.3 per cent of the region’s population in 2020 and almost 38 per cent of the world’s international migrants.

If managed properly, migration can benefit migrants, their families, as well as both the countries they come from and go to.

Growth in the international migrant stock in Asia and the Pacific and by subregion, 1990—2020

United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (2020). International Migrant Stock 2020.

Migration is largely a result of disparities

Development disparities are a key driver of international migration. Poverty, limited job opportunities, recently exacerbated by rising food and energy prices, and the prospect for higher wages abroad are main contributors to the decision to migrate.

Migrants work in jobs of all skill levels: construction and domestic workers, nurses, accountants, computer scientists, teachers and many others. Women are particularly engaged in domestic and care work.

Migration primarily occurs within the region. People often prefer to migrate to countries with geographic and cultural proximity. The region features distinct migration corridors, such as from Central Asia to the Russian Federation, from Pacific islands to Australia or within South East Asia.

Temporary labour migration from Asia and the Pacific to the Middle East is significant too, with Bangladesh, Indonesia, Pakistan and the Philippines as the main countries of origin. Overall, Asia and the Pacific is a hub for international migration; many countries are simultaneously countries of origin, destination and transit.

Millions of young people from the Asia-Pacific region also migrate to study abroad. After completing their degrees many of them gain work visas and employment in their country of destination, such as Australia or New Zealand.

Migration without choice

Other people have no choice but to migrate. They flee their countries due to war and conflict. In 2022, there were 31.6 million refugees from Asia and the Pacific under the mandate of UNHCR and 27.5 million of them were living in the region.

A total of 53 per cent of refugees from Asia-Pacific countries are female and 43 per cent are under 18 years old. Countries such as Bangladesh, Islamic Republic of Iran, Pakistan, and Türkiye are among the largest host countries of refugees in the world for refugees from neighbouring countries in conflict. An increasing number of people migrate for environmental reasons and climate change because they see their livelihoods being destroyed.

Migration comes with a high cost for migrants

Despite the gains, migration comes at a high cost for migrants. Recruitment costs to private recruiters remain high. Some pay with their lives: Since 2014, every year, an estimated 4,000 deaths have been recorded worldwide on migration routes.

Each year, thousands of men and women fall prey to traffickers and smugglers, often for forced labour and sexual exploitation. Access to social services and protection, as well as rights, in destination countries often remain limited, particularly for workers classified as low skilled, including domestic workers. Women migrants are at higher risk of being abused and find limited access to sexual and reproductive health services.

Migrants are agents of development

Migrants typically send back cash or goods to support their families in their country of origin, known as remittances. In 2022, a total of $311 billion was sent to Asia and the Pacific as remittances, which support better housing, nutrition and better education for children. In countries of destination, migrants perform jobs that often could not be filled otherwise. Migrant workers are essential to many sectors in the economy, particularly in ageing societies.

Migration is an irreversible trend in the Asia-Pacific region. To harness the benefits, safe and low-cost pathways for regular migration are needed. There is also a need to address development disparities, conflict and environmental degradation to ensure that migration is people’s individual choice. Regional dialogue and cooperation on international migration is crucial to this end.

The Seventh Asian and Pacific Population Conference, organized by ESCAP and UNFPA, in Bangkok from 15 to 17 November 2023, will provide opportunities for policymakers, civil society organizations and other stakeholders to discuss key population and development issues.

The meeting’s outcome will provide the regional input to the global review of the Programme of Action of the International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) at the 57th session of the Commission on Population and Development, in 2024.

Vanessa Steinmayer is Population Affairs Officer, Social Development Division, ESCAP and Simon Graham is UNFPA Fellow on Population and Development.

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');  

A partial view of the exterior of the United Nations headquarters in Baghdad, that was destroyed by a truck bomb on August 19, 2003. Credit: UN Photo/Timothy Sopp

By Khaled Mansour
NEW YORK, Sep 8 2023 (IPS)

Twenty years ago this month, a colleague saved me from a likely gruesome death. He insisted I stay in his Baghdad office of the World Food Programme (WFP) for a hot drink. “You can’t leave us without trying the tea I made for you! The best in Iraq.”

I drove back to my office half an hour later than scheduled. Near the grim building of the Canal Hotel, the UN headquarters in the Iraqi capital, I caught sight of a column of smoke and a grey cloud forming on the horizon.

A tragedy was unfolding. People were shouting and crying, while dust, sweat and the scent of molten iron irritated my eyes and nostrils. An American soldier stopped me, brandishing his weapon. He and his unit usually stood idly by their armoured vehicle, leaving the main entrance under the care of local security men. “Let me through, this is my office, I work here!!”

The soldiers didn’t speak or argue; they were tense and firm as they held their weapons in a ready position. What happened while I was away? Why couldn’t I get into my office? I felt an urge to force my passage through the soldiers, to enter the apocalyptic grounds.

Khaled Mansour

The gate at the back of the compound was open.

Inside, survivors were scattered, their faces pale and covered with a film of dust, sweat and blood. Many were sitting on the grass scorched by the summer heat in the spacious garden or on the grounds of the parking lot, staring into nothingness, while others trembled in tears as they embraced each other.

“Sérgio is dying,” cried a colleague before collapsing into my arms.

I slipped through a small back door and onto my office on the second floor. The broken glass of shattered windows crushed under my feet as I cautiously took one step after another in dim dusty corridors. I passed over doors torn off their hinges by the force of the blast, thrown onto the ground or leaning against the wall. Desks, drawers, shelves and paper littered the corridors.

My laptop was there but many keys had popped out due to the force of the explosion. Large, sharp glass fragments had lodged in the back of my chair. Had I been there, any of them could have pierced my back.

I walked in darkness until a soldier stopped me at the office of Sérgio Vieira de Mello, the head of the UN mission in Iraq. De Mello had been sent there a few weeks earlier by the then UN Secretary General Kofi Annan. His mission was to help the invading Americans reach a political way out and hand over power to Iraqis, after the military and political foundations of Saddam Hussein’s regime had been destroyed earlier that year in an ill-conceived and illegal war that had not even been sanctioned by the UN Security Council.

I asked the soldier to let me through. With a vacant look in his eyes, he said, “There’s no ‘through’. There is nothing there; that part of the building is vaporised. If you stepped behind that door, you’d fall several stories onto rubble, iron rods, and concrete blocks.”

A partial view of the United Nations headquarters in Baghdad that was destroyed by a truck bomb on 19 August 2003. Credit: UN Photo/Timothy Sopp

I entered the adjacent office where a colleague and I used to smoke whenever we had the chance. Her cigarettes and lighter were on her desk covered by a thin layer of dust that enveloped everything in the room. She was among the missing, and I would later learn that she died in the explosion.

What I had missed

It took hours for us to piece the initial story together. Around 4:30pm on 19th August, 2003, a suicide bomber drove a truck heavily loaded with explosives into the UN compound. His deadly cargo detonated upon impact, destroying a whole corner of the building, burying those inside it under the collapsed floors. The attack killed 22 people, most of whom were UN staff members.

I spent the evening that day in a UN vehicle with colleagues moving from one hospital and medical centre to another, checking on the wounded and searching for some missing UN staff. We ferried some walking wounded back to their hotels.

For a few days, we worked all our waking hours, surrendering ourselves to an immense flow of adrenaline, meetings, calls, and emails.

There was no time to be angry about the UN failure to anticipate the attack or better protect its staff. There was no time to be angry at the mindless, murderous terrorists, or to contemplate the role of the US invasion and the disastrous de-Ba’athification policy, and the emerging Baath/jihadi coalitions which created a wave of terror that haunts the region today. There would be time for that, later.

I remained oblivious to how the attack impacted me psychologically for several weeks until the long-delayed recognition of the enormity of this horror finally arrived after I returned home to New York. I began tough journey of recovery, where I had to deal with survivor’s guilt and disturbing flashbacks, not to mention what happens usually in such circumstances when upsetting memories swept under the rug of the unconscious creep up and pull you down to very dark caves.

I was very fortunate (and the UN was probably very worried about liability and litigation) to be able to have a fully paid year of leave during which I underwent intensive psychotherapy, also paid for by my health insurance. Millions of Iraqis, including UN contractors, were not that lucky.

It took years to fully integrate this harrowing experience and move on. I now accept, rather than avoid, the waves of sadness—and sometimes anger—this memory brings. I know now how not to inflict my suffering on others. This required hard, personal work, and the support and love of friends, family members, and professionals.

I managed to return to work, including in conflict zones, after about a year.

Who was accountable?

The direct responsibility for this horrific attack rested with the terrorist Al-Qaeda group. For them the UN was a proxy target, easier to hit than the US military, which was then their nemesis, but had been an ally of their jihadi ideological fathers in Afghanistan in the 1980s. A wave of propaganda relying on a grain of truth that the UN was whitewashing the American invasion dominated Iraqi and even wider Arab conversations about the international organisation. Al-Qaeda recruiters exploited it cleverly to convince volunteers and followers that the UN was a legitimate target.

In a few months, the UN completed a detailed investigation and pointed the internal fingers of blame at dysfunctional security systems and officials. It shied away from directly blaming the decision-making process for hasty deployment of such political and humanitarian aid missions to danger zones without adequate planning, especially when such decisions were pushed by interested influential capitals.

I remember long discussions among senior UN officials and colleagues before and after the attack on how humanitarian aid had become too politicised and how this had turned us, aid workers, into a soft target for attacks which had been increasingly aimed at civilians and civilian infrastructure.

The day of the attack

On 19th August, 2003, a few hours before the attack, a colleague was trying to park our car inside the UN compound after passing through extensive security checks. As I got out of the car, I noticed a woman and a child behind a side unguarded gate. The child had managed to insert himself in the slight opening of the gate held together by a rusty chain and an old padlock. His slim figure was almost inside the compound when he noticed me. We exchanged conspiratorial smiles. Before he could fully push his body through, his mother grabbed his arm and pulled him back.

I thought I should inform the UN security officer, who was walking towards me, about what had just happened. They had excessive security measures at the main entrance while leaving that side gate easily passable for a small person. Before I could utter a word, the security officer shouted, “Move your car from here, these spots are reserved for the mission leadership!”

We exchanged some terse words. I pointed towards the gate. The woman and the child had already left. I said that this was a serious security lapse. He got angrier and shouted, “This is my job, don’t teach me my job, move your car now!”

A few hours later, the explosives truck drove into this rickety side gate dislodging it.

Undoubtedly, there was a clear failure and negligence on the part of security personnel and systems. Some of them faced subsequent administrative sanctions. However, understanding how the flawed security system allowed the terrorists to easily carry out the attack does not help us understand why they considered and planned such an attack against the UN in the first place.

How the UN became a target

Over the past 30 years, many people, especially in societies that receive aid or are affected by the UN resolutions and interventions, have increasingly viewed the organisation as a part of a scheme to maintain a western-dominated international order. From jihadists and armed militias to aid-receiving governments and communities, the UN has increasingly been perceived as subservient to neoliberal ideologies and western capitalist interests. My colleagues and I have heard this from government officials in Khartoum and Kabul, militia men in Darfur and Faizabad, and from refugees and displaced people in Palestine and Lebanon. Those who receive UN assistance always appreciated the help but often complained that aid had not addressed the root causes of their misery. They sometimes raised doubts about the motives of big aid agencies.

In the face of complex and unresolved conflicts, it is easier to adopt a superficial and simplistic view of how the UN works and claim that its myriad of organisations and programmes are mere tools of western foreign policy. And there is probably a grain of truth to such claims, especially since the end of the Cold War. Western capitals provide over 75 per cent of the funding for humanitarian organisations, they dominate their governance systems, and monopolise the top positions in the most important global humanitarian organisations, namely Unicef, WFP and the UNHCR. The first two have almost always been led by Americans, some of whom had served in senior political positions in their governments.

During the 20th century, the aid enterprise became increasingly intertwined with transnational politics. In addition to altruistic motivations and legal underpinnings, it was also increasingly influenced by realpolitik considerations to ensure that conflicts, poverty, and natural disasters did not undermine the stability of strategically important interests or region.

With the evaporation of the Soviet bloc in the late 1980s, disintegrating states and armed non-state actors emerged as the main threat to the international world order championed by the west. Al-Qaeda, though a former ally of the US in its global anti-Soviet campaigns, attacked the US on the home front. The murderous terrorist carnage on 11th September led to a massive and excessive response by the US and its allies in Afghanistan in 2001 and then in Iraq in 2003. The humanitarian enterprise played a large, albeit secondary, role to mitigate the impact of these wars on civilians. This role was largely shaped and funded by the US and its allies.

Since then, ideologically driven armed militias, remnants of the hard Stalinist left, and also some liberal and realist circles, started to perceive UN organisations as largely dominated by western capitals, and as a part of their toolbox in global undertakings, whether peaceful or military.

These are factual elements that fed the conspiratorial world view which enabled the bombing of Baghdad UN offices 20 years ago.

Modern humanitarian aid has not been free from political prerogatives since its formal evolution in the early 20th century. It became one of the Cold War battlegrounds after World War II. Then it metamorphosed again in the 1990s following the collapse of the Soviet Union, as the dominant powers tried to subject it to their national priorities. This was evident in several conflict areas in the 1990s. For example, in the Balkans, the UN created safe havens to partly prevent the flow of refugees to western Europe. While food and shelter were provided, protection was not available, resulting in the deaths of thousands of Bosnians in places like Srebrenica.

Humanitarian organisations operate in a hyper-political environment while striving to adhere to principles of neutrality, independence, and impartiality. It is true, however, that UN senior leaders and staff on the ground can sometimes take inappropriate decisions and carry out their work in ways that are inconsistent with UN values. Such actions taint the entire UN and contributes to blanket perceptions such as “the UN is corrupt”.

None of this is to excuse, much less justify, a vicious strategy by armed groups involved in acts of terror that target international aid groups. It is to try to understand the environment in which these groups recruit and operate. It is also to show how innocent people can be crushed between the political machinations of the international community and the armed groups (or states) that control their lives.

How the train of politics twisted the tracks of humanitarian work

The politicisation of humanitarian aid was evident when I joined the UN in 1999 in Afghanistan, where the Taliban on the ground and donors in Washington and other capitals held many of the levers for the allocation and delivery of aid.

After 11th September, meetings with USAid in Islamabad focused on trying to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe in Afghanistan after the US invasion. Afghanistan was already suffering from cyclical droughts, poor social services and a crumbling economy after being dominated by armed conflict for decades. They did not want to allow the Taliban to use the humanitarian cost of the war against them. The UN flooded the country with flour, oil and essential food items, and the feared famine never materialised.

Aid politicisation went into a higher gear of integration in 2002, during the months leading up to the Iraq War. The then US Secretary of State Colin Powell believed that foreign aid provided political incentives, supported free market democracy, and helped counter disorganised transnational migration.

In the autumn of 2002, humanitarian plans by UN organisations were shared with Washington. Before the war broke out organisations sought firm financial commitments from the US to start pre-positioning supplies.

Predictably, the shift in Middle Eastern and South Asian public opinion against the UN and aid agencies continued with rising allegations of bias and subservience to western interests. The complexity of functions, the competition for funding and a perception of clashing roles and priorities within UN organisations further complicated efforts to counter these allegations.

For example, the UN Security Council has at various stages imposed sanctions on Iraq, Afghanistan, Sudan and Syria—measures that have severely affected the civilian populations rather than the targeted regimes and their proxies. Meanwhile, UN aid organisations like Unicef, the UNHCR, and the WFP continued to spend hundreds of millions of dollars (the total global budget of these organisations in 2022 exceeded $26bn) on millions of refugees, internally displaced persons and those harmed by the war and by these very sanctions.

Some of the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, notably Russia and the US, have been implicated in strikes on medical and health facilities during conflicts in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan, launching drone attacks against enemy targets killing many civilians in the process (what they call collateral damage), assassination attempts against opponents and arbitrary detentions. At the same time, they joined other western countries and Japan in providing the largest share of humanitarian needs (over $20bn in 2022 ), sometimes in the same places where they carry out or support seemingly endless military conflicts, such as in Yemen, Syria and Afghanistan.

These examples illustrate the complexity of behaviours of states and international organisations driven by often clashing motives and considerations.

However, in an era of dis- and misinformation and the quest for the ultimate sound bite, it becomes easier to view the UN as a failed international humanitarian conglomerate serving western political interests, incapable of leading the world to achieve just peace, enhance sustainable development or better protect human rights. (These were the three main pillars of the UN when its charter was put together after World War II.)

On the other hand, the authorities in recipient countries influence decisions about aid distribution: who receives assistance and who gets local contracts. A well-documented report in 2022 about aid operation in Syria revealed transactions involving tens of millions of dollars between UN organisations and private sector companies, some of which were owned or controlled by security agencies or senior Syrian officials who had been subject to western sanctions. These companies received around 47 per cent of the total UN contracts in 2019 and 2020.

Until the bombing of the UN headquarters in Iraq in 2003, humanitarian workers took simple and logical security precautions—most notably, the display of their insignias on their offices, homes, and vehicles. The message that we, the UN, were neutral and impartial largely worked.

This started to change in the 1990s and early 2000s with new concepts such as the Responsibility to Protect, which started to give the UN a role that could be seen as interventionist. The reputation of UN organisations started to suffer. Many people, especially in recipient communities, increasingly perceived the UN as a western agent or a weak, subservient actor. Those who work with the UN have consequently become easier targets for criticism and, tragically, attacks.

In 2000 and 2001, I rode in rundown yellow taxis to go to the market in Kabul, where Taliban soldiers roamed the streets. I drove my own car bearing UN license plates to tribal areas in Pakistan, where jihadist groups, drug gangs, and arms dealers were present.

A few years later, during my missions in conflict zones, I needed security clearances to be able to leave my well-fortified offices. I wore a bulletproof vest and used two cars, one of them armoured, to attend meetings.

Relief workers started to be separated from people they were meant to assist, not merely by protective helmets and vests, but they also stayed inside homes and offices surrounded by sandbags and shock-absorbing barriers. These buildings became isolated behind barbed wires and high-security systems in locations far removed from the communities they were meant to serve. The walls around UN offices grew taller, and most of those working in conflict zones moved to live within fortified sanctuaries. International organisations also sent fewer international staff to unsafe areas.

All these changes help explain the decrease in casualties among foreign relief workers.

In 2003, a total of 117 local relief workers were killed, injured, or abducted, compared to 26 of their international colleagues. By 2022, the number of casualties among local workers had risen to 421, while the number of foreign relief worker casualties had decreased to 23. It is evident that the risks have increased, but their distribution has radically reversed, with local workers bearing much more of the burden.

Why I returned

My actual return to work in 2005 did not mean that I returned to who I was on the morning of 19th August, 2003, before the Baghdad attack occurred. In addition to my emotional and psychological shifts, I have also become more aware of limitations of humanitarian interventions and the urgent need for reforms in the international aid system.

By the time I decided to leave the UN in 2013, I had voiced almost all my concerns about the aid industry while working within the system.

Now, on the anniversary of the Baghdad explosion that I survived, I think a lot about the person I was 20 years ago when I lost 22 of my colleagues. I reflect on the price I paid and how much I have changed. I cherish the memory of friends and colleagues who lost their lives, were wounded or abducted over the past two decades—around 6,000 of them. The most recent was my late colleague, Moayad Hameidi, the head of the World Food Programme office in Taiz, Yemen, who was gunned down in late July. He survived Iraq but not Yemen.

The senseless Baghdad explosion compelled me to change, hopefully for the better, but the UN has been much slower in reforming itself while fully adhering to the principles on which it was founded—most importantly, humanity. Overhauling massive institutions might be much harder than healing and changing individuals. Perhaps our only choice here is to continue to work patiently to advance reforms step by step, programme after programme, until the UN better embodies the spirit of its charter, signed in San Francisco nearly 80 years ago.

Khaled Mansour is a writer, consultant and an adjunct professor on humanitarian aid, human rights and peacekeeping. He spent 13 years working for the United Nations, including for Unicef, peacekeeping missions and the World Food Programme

This article was first published in Prospect magazine
https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/world/62770/twenty-years-on-from-the-un-bombing-in-baghdad-whats-changed

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');  

A Group photo of participants of the regional conference on the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons and nuclear-free-zone in Central Asia held on August 29, 2023. Credit: Jibek Joly TV Channel

By Katsuhiro Asagiri and Kunsaya Kurmet-Rakhimova
ASTANA, Kazakhstan, Sep 7 2023 (IPS)

Exactly 32 years ago, on September 29, 1991, Kazakhstan, then part of the Soviet Union, made a historic decision that would alter its fate. On that day, Kazakhstan permanently closed the Semipalatinsk Nuclear Test Site, defying the central government in Moscow. This marked the start of Kazakhstan’s transformation from a nuclear-armed state, possessing the fourth-largest nuclear arsenal at the time, to a non-nuclear-weapon state. Kazakhstan’s audacious move to eliminate its nuclear weapons was rooted in a profound commitment to global disarmament, setting an inspiring precedent.

Eighteen years later, in 2009, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution, led by Kazakhstan, designating August 29 as the International Day Against Nuclear Tests. This day serves as a solemn reminder of the catastrophic consequences of nuclear weapons and underscores the urgent imperative for disarmament.

In a world where the threat of nuclear weapons being used again remains a grim reality, a pivotal question looms: Can we genuinely aspire to a world free of nuclear arms? To delve deeper into this pressing concern and comprehend the menace posed by nuclear weapons testing and deployment, we interviewed Karipbek Kuyukov and participants of the “Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons and the Central Asian Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone” regional conference. This conference, organized by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Kazakhstan in partnership with the Center for International Security and Policy (CISP), Soka Gakkai International (SGI), the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), and the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), took place in Astana, Kazakhstan to commemorate this year’s International Day Against Nuclear Tests.

Karipbek Kuyukov is an armless painter from Kazakhstan, and global anti–nuclear weapon testing & nonproliferation activist. Credit: Jibek Joly TV Channel

One of the most poignant moments during the conference came from Dmitriy Vesselov, a third-generation survivor of nuclear testing. He provided a heartfelt testimony about the profound human toll exacted by nuclear testings on his family and the broader community. The nuclear tests conducted at the Semipalatinsk Nuclear Test Site over four decades unleashed explosions 2,500 times more potent than the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The repercussions of these tests have echoed through generations, inflicting severe health problems and untold suffering.

Kuyukov, a renowned Kazakh artist born without hands due to radiation exposure in his mother’s womb, has devoted his life to raising awareness about the horrors of nuclear testing. His powerful artwork, created using his lips or toes, depicts the survivors of nuclear tests and serves as a poignant tribute to those who perished. Kuyukov’s unwavering commitment reflects the indomitable human spirit in the face of unimaginable adversity.

Dmitriy Vesselov’s testimony shed light on the ongoing challenges faced by survivors. He candidly shared his struggles with health issues, including acromioclavicular dysostosis, a condition severely limiting his physical capabilities. Vesselov expressed his deep concern about the potential transmission of these health problems to future generations. Consequently, he has chosen not to have children. The conference underscored the imperative of averting the repetition of history by delving into the past tragedies inflicted by nuclear weapons testings.

Hirotsugu Terasaki, Director General of Peace and Global Issues of SGI, commenting on the event said “I believe that this regional conference is a new milestone, a starting point for representatives from five countries of Central Asia to discuss how we can advance the process toward a nuclear-weapon-free world, given the ever-increasing threat of nuclear weapons.”

Terasaki observed that the international community is actively deliberating Articles 6 and 7 of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), mandating state parties to provide support to victims and address environmental remediation. He accentuated Kazakhstan’s pivotal role as a co-chair of the working group central to these discussions.

Kazakhstan does provide special medical insurance and benefits to victims of nuclear tests. However, these benefits are predominantly extended to individuals officially certified as disabled or a family member of those who succumbed to radiation-related illnesses. Numerous victims, like Vesselov, who do not fall within these categories, remain ineligible for assistance.

Despite his daunting challenges, Mr. Vesselov maintains an unwavering sense of hope. He hopes that his testimony will serve as a stark reminder of the perils of nuclear weapons and awaken global consciousness regarding the dangers posed by even small tactical nuclear weapons and the specter of limited nuclear conflicts. Ultimately, his deepest aspiration, shared by all victims of nuclear weapons, is that the world will never bear witness to such a devastating tragedy again.

As Kazakhstan assumes its role as President-designate of the third Meeting of States Parties to the TPNW, it reaffirms its steadfast commitment to global peace and disarmament. President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev’s resolute words resonate with the sentiment of a nation that has borne the scars of nuclear testing: “Such a tragedy should not happen again. Our country will unwaveringly uphold the principles of nuclear security.”

At the conference, member states of the Treaty of Semipalatinsk were encouraged to support Kazakhstan in this endeavor, and in its efforts to represent the Central Asian region’s contribution to nuclear disarmament, through attending the second Meeting of States Parties of the TPNW, at least as observers, which will take place at the United Nations Headquarters in New York between 27 November and 1 December this year, and by signing and ratifying the TPNW at the earliest opportunity.

In a world still grappling with the looming specter of nuclear devastation, Kazakhstan’s journey from a nuclear test site to a leading advocate for disarmament serves as a beacon of hope. Kazakhstan’s unwavering commitment to peace stands as a testament to the enduring legacy of a nation that once bore the weight of nuclear tests and now champions a safer, more secure world for all.

Katsuhiro Asagiri is President of INPS Japan and Kunsaya Kurmet-Rakhimova is a reporter of Jibek Joly(Silk Way) TV Channel.

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');  

United Nations Secretary General Antonio Guterres addresses the 22nd session of the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues at the General Assembly Hall of the United Nations headquarters in New York City on 17 April 17 2023. Credit: Ed Jones/AFP via Getty Images

By Mandeep S.Tiwana
NEW YORK, Sep 7 2023 (IPS)

This September, world leaders and public policy advocates from around the world will descend on New York for the UN General Assembly. Alongside conversations on peace and security, global development and climate change, progress – or the lack of it – on the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) is expected to take centre-stage. A major SDG Summit will be held on 18 and 19 September. The UN hopes that it will serve as a ‘rallying cry to recharge momentum for world leaders to come together to reflect on where we stand and resolve to do more’. But are the world’s leaders in a mood to uphold the UN’s purpose, and can the UN’s leadership rise to the occasion by resolutely addressing destructive behaviours?

Sadly, the world is facing an acute crisis of leadership. In far too many countries authoritarian leaders have seized power through a combination of populist political discourse, outright repression and military coups. Our findings on the CIVICUS Monitor – a participatory research platform that measures civic freedoms in every country – show that 85% of the world’s population live in places where serious attacks on basic fundamental freedoms to organise, speak out and protest are taking place. Respect for these freedoms is essential so that people and civil society organisations can have a say in inclusive decision making.

UN undermined

The UN Charter begins with the words, ‘We the Peoples’ and a resolve to save future generations from the scourge of war. Its ideals, such as respect for human rights and the dignity of every person, are being eroded by powerful states that have introduced slippery concepts such as ‘cultural relativism’ and ‘development with national characteristics’. The consensus to seek solutions to global challenges through the UN appears to be at breaking point. As we speak hostilities are raging in Ukraine, Sudan, the Occupied Palestinian Territories and the Sahel region even as millions of people reel from the negative consequences of protracted conflicts and oppression in Afghanistan, Ethiopia, Myanmar, Syria and Yemen, to name a few.

Article 1 of the UN Charter underscores the UN’s role in harmonising the actions of nations towards the attainment of common ends, including in relation to solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural or humanitarian character, and to promote respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms for all. But in a time of eye-watering inequality within and between countries, big economic decisions affecting people and the planet are not being made collectively at the UN but by the G20 group of the world’s biggest economies, whose leaders are meeting prior to the UN General Assembly to make economic decisions with ramifications for all countries.

Economic and development cooperation policies for a large chunk of the globe are also determined through the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). Established in 1961, the OECD comprises 38 countries with a stated commitment to democratic values and market-based economics. Civil society has worked hard to get the OECD to take action on issues such as fair taxation, social protection and civic space.

More recently, the BRICS – Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa – grouping of countries that together account for 40 per cent of the world’s population and a quarter of the globe’s GDP are seeking to emerge as a counterweight to the OECD. However, concerns remain about the values that bind this alliance. At its recent summit in South Africa six new members were admitted, four of which – Egypt, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates – are ruled by totalitarian governments with a history of repressing civil society voices. This comes on top of concerns that China and Russia are driving the BRICS agenda despite credible allegations that their governments have committed crimes against humanity.

The challenge before the UN’s leadership this September is to find ways to bring coherence and harmony to decisions being taken at the G20, OECD, BRICS and elsewhere to serve the best interests of excluded people around the globe. A focus on the SDGs by emphasising their universality and indivisibility can provide some hope.

SDGs off-track

The adoption of the SDGs in 2015 was a groundbreaking moment. The 17 ambitious SDGs and their 169 targets have been called the greatest ever human endeavour to create peaceful, just, equal and sustainable societies. The SDGs include promises to tackle inequality and corruption, promote women’s equality and empowerment, support inclusive and participatory governance, ensure sustainable consumption and production, usher in rule of law and catalyse effective partnerships for development.

But seven years on the SDGs are seriously off-track. The UN Secretary-General’s SDG progress report released this July laments that the promise to ‘leave no one behind’ is in peril. As many as 30 per cent of the targets are reported to have seen no progress or worse to have regressed below their 2015 baseline. The climate crisis, war in Ukraine, a weak global economy and the COVID-19 pandemic are cited as some of the reasons why progress is lacking.

UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres is pushing for an SDG stimulus plan to scale up financing to the tune of US$500 billion. It remains to be seen how successful this would be given the self-interest being pursued by major powers that have the financial resources to contribute. Moreover, without civic participation and guarantees for enabled civil societies, there is a high probability that SDG stimulus funds could be misused by authoritarian governments to reinforce networks of patronage and to shore up repressive state apparatuses.

Also up for discussion at the UN General Assembly will be plans for a major Summit for the Future in 2024 to deliver the UN Secretary-General’s Our Common Agenda report, released in 2021. This proposes among other things the appointment of a UN Envoy for Future Generations, an upgrade of key UN institutions, digital cooperation across the board and boosting partnerships to drive access and inclusion at the UN. But with multilateralism stymied by hostility and divisions among big powers on the implementation of internationally agreed norms, achieving progress on this agenda implies a huge responsibility on the UN’s leadership to forge consensus while speaking truth to power and challenging damaging behaviours by states and their leaders.

The UN’s leadership have found its voice on the issue of climate change. Secretary-General Guterres has been remarkably candid about the negative impacts of the fossil fuel industry and its supporters. This July, he warned that ‘The era of global warming has ended; the era of global boiling has arrived’. Similar candour is required to call out the twin plagues of authoritarianism and populism which are causing immense suffering to people around the world while exacerbating conflict, inequality and climate change.

The formation of the UN as the conscience of the world in 1945 was an exercise in optimism and altruism. This September that spirit will be needed more than ever to start creating a better world for all, and to prove the UN’s value.

Mandeep S. Tiwana is chief officer for evidence and engagement + representative to the UN headquarters at CIVICUS, the global civil society alliance.

 

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');