Africa - INTER PRESS SERVICE

Vivian van de Perre, Deputy Special Representative for Protection and Operations in the United Nations Stabilization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (MONUSCO) and Interim Head of MONUSCO, addresses the Security Council meeting on the situation concerning the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Credit: UN Photo/Eskinder Debebe

By Oritro Karim
UNITED NATIONS, Mar 27 2026 (IPS)

In the month following the reopening of the Burundi-Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) border, the humanitarian crisis in the DRC has deteriorated considerably, recently marked by an influx of Congolese refugees returning home, where they face overcrowded conditions and a severe shortage of essential services. This comes in the midst of escalating clashes between rebel groups AFC and M23, and forces affiliated with the Kinshasa government, with drone strikes causing widespread destruction and pushing violence closer to Burundi’s borders, where conditions are most dire.

Vivian van de Perre, Deputy Special Representative for Protection and Operations with the United Nations Organization Stabilization Mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo (MONUSCO), described the current humanitarian situation as “extremely volatile”. During a press stakeout on March 26, she highlighted that the rapid spread of the conflict from North and South Kivu into Tshopo Province and toward Burundi’s borders is a major concern, warning that it increases the risk of a broader “regional conflagration.”

Van de Perre also warned that armed militants have been increasingly relying on the use of heavy weapons and drone strikes in densely populated urban areas, which have caused great damage to civilian infrastructure as well as serious risks to civilian safety, underscoring recent violent incidents at the Kisagani Bangoka International Airport and in Goma, the largest city in North Kivu. Additionally, she warned of M23’s growing presence in Goma, where the coalition has managed to gain influence, undermine state authority, and disrupt humanitarian aid deliveries.

Furthermore, the United Nations Joint Human Rights Office in the DRC (UNJHRO) has uncovered a considerable rise in human rights violations committed by armed groups. Since December 2025, approximately 173 cases of conflict-related sexual violence have been documented, affecting at least 111 victims, the majority of whom were women and girls.

Van de Perre described these findings as “only the tip of the iceberg,” and highlighted growing rates of exploitation, particularly along artisanal mining sites, where child labour is especially pronounced. Armed groups have also been alleged to hamper monitoring, investigation, and justice mechanisms, and subject human rights defenders, journalists, and civil society actors to intimidation and arbitrary detention.

This follows a sharp escalation of hostilities between the armed groups in December 2025, which forced hundreds of thousands of Congolese to flee to Burundi, most coming from Uvira in South Kivu Province and the surrounding areas. Figures from the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (UNHCR) show that after M23’s withdrawal from Uvira in January and a relative return of stability, more than 33,000 refugees began returning home since the border’s reopening on February 23, with most crossing through the Kavimira border point. Many of these returnees already received little humanitarian assistance in Burundi due to chronic underfunding.

“Conditions in many areas of return in the DRC remain fragile, with acute humanitarian needs,” said Ali Mahamat, UNHCR Head of Sub-Office in Goma, DRC, on March 24 at a press briefing at the Palais des Nations in Geneva. “Initial UNHCR assessments in Uvira and Fizi show families arriving with few belongings, in urgent need of shelter, basic household items, health care, and access to water and sanitation. Many returned to find their homes destroyed and belongings looted, leaving them in deep despair and unable to resume normal life without substantial support.”

According to the latest updates from the International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC), roughly 60 percent of returnees are living in damaged shelters and over 30 percent face challenges accessing their land. Returnees face heightened risks of gender-based violence, forced recruitment into armed groups, extortion, and exploitation, with female-headed households disproportionately affected due to limited livelihood opportunities for women, which leave these communities entrenched in poverty and especially vulnerable.

Figures from UNHCR show that approximately 30 percent of returnees had been taking refuge in Burundi’s Busama displacement camp, where they faced significant levels of overcrowding and limited access to clean water, sanitation services, healthcare, and shelter. Currently, roughly 4,500 Congolese refugees remain stuck at transit points as they await being relocated to Busama. Additionally, Burundi continues to host over 109,000 Congolese refugees, with 67,000 of them in Busuma alone.

Additionally, internal displacement remains widespread in the DRC, with more than 6.4 million people currently displaced. IFRC estimates that over 5.2 million internally displaced Congolese are concentrated in North and South Kivu, as well as Ituri, 96 percent as a result of ongoing armed violence. According to van de Perre, over 26.6 million people, roughly a quarter of DRC’s population, are projected to face food insecurity this year.

Currently, UNHCR’s response plan to assist returnees, refugees, and displaced Congolese civilians is only 34 percent funded, seeking a total of USD 145 million. MONUSCO is currently on the frontlines providing protection services for nearly 3,000 civilians in Djaiba village. Through the mission, the UN has been able to support over 18,000 farmers in harvesting and transporting crops and has conducted 204 patrols. Van de Perre stressed that stronger governance and security enforcement are crucial in protecting vulnerable civilians, and disarmament and repatriation efforts must be conducted to resolve broader regional tensions.

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');  

The Human Rights council, Geneva.
 
United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk in an address to the Human Rights Council.

By Volker Turk
GENEVA, Mar 27 2026 (IPS)

More than three weeks after the United States and Israel launched strikes on Iran, the conflict is spreading and intensifying in the region and beyond, with civilians bearing the brunt. Families across the region marked Eid and Nowruz under fire, in fear and uncertainty, and facing further hardship.

The situation is extremely dangerous and unpredictable, and has created chaos across the region, affecting Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Jordan, and beyond.

Since the start of hostilities, Iran has launched large numbers of drones and missiles against military bases, residential areas and energy facilities across these Gulf States and Jordan. Strikes and interceptions have caused terrible harm to civilians, including dozens of deaths and injuries.

Meanwhile, ports, energy facilities, airports, water infrastructure, and diplomatic premises have suffered damage, disrupting essential services and increasing risks to all civilians.

Many of the strikes in this conflict raise serious concerns under international law, which prohibits attacks targeting civilians and their infrastructure, and attacks on military targets where harm to civilians is disproportionate.

I also need to underscore the grave ramifications of this conflict for a number of other countries in the broader region, including Iraq and Syria, as well as the Occupied Palestinian Territory.

Recent missile strikes near nuclear sites in both Israel and Iran underscore the immense danger of further escalation. States are flirting with unmitigated catastrophe.

Civilians in Lebanon are caught up in a human rights and humanitarian disaster. Government figures detail more than one thousand people killed by Israeli military strikes in the past three weeks, including 79 women, 118 children and 40 medical workers. I am deeply concerned by attacks that have hit apartment buildings, killing entire families in some cases.

Meanwhile, Iran and Hezbollah continue to launch missiles and drones into Israel, also causing loss of life, damage to civilian infrastructure, and displacement.

Inside Iran, civilians seek shelter from airstrikes across all 31 provinces of the country. According to Iranian government figures, some 1,400 civilians have been killed and more than 20,000 injured.

There is a growing pattern of strikes affecting residential areas, civilian infrastructure, and other sites that are protected under international law. Housing, hospitals, schools, cultural sites, transport networks and energy infrastructure have all been hit.

As Iranians shelter from these strikes, they also face another wave of cruel state repression, including arbitrary arrests, executions, intimidation and censorship. The internet has been shut down for more than three weeks.

This conflict is also having very serious ramifications beyond the region.

The disruption by Iran of shipping through the Strait of Hormuz is affecting global supply chains, with dire implications for some of the world’s poorest people.

Fossil fuels, medicine, food, and fertilizers are just some of the vital goods that are being held up at sea. This is disrupting global energy markets and supplies; and has the potential to create serious hunger and healthcare crises. The World Food Programme warns that almost 45 million more people could fall into acute hunger unless the conflict ends soon.

The effects are most destructive in lower-income countries, particularly across South Asia. Developing economies are in general less able to withstand price shocks.

Several States have already introduced energy-saving measures. Bangladesh, for example, has closed universities and introduced fuel rationing, while the Philippines has introduced a state of national energy emergency. The crisis could also reduce the flow of remittances from migrant workers that keep families and communities afloat.

There are ongoing attempts to mitigate the closure of the Strait by releasing oil reserves and easing sanctions. But they have not made a significant difference, and the wider consequences remain unpredictable.

Analysis by UNCTAD shows that insurance premiums and marine fuel costs are surging, increasing prices across the board and around the world.

The UN’s Economic and Social Commission for West Asia assesses that the conflict has already caused some $63 billion in economic losses across the Arab region.

Conflict can never be ordinary or standard. But this conflict has an unprecedented power to ensnare countries across borders and around the world. The complex dynamics could ignite further national, regional or global crises at any moment, with an appalling impact on civilians and people everywhere.

The only guaranteed way to prevent this is to end the conflict, and I urge all States, and particularly those with influence, to do everything in their power to achieve this.

Our deeply interconnected world requires that all countries recommit to full respect for international law, and the UN Charter.

We cannot go back to war as a tool of international relations.

When some powerful States are trying to weaken the multilateral system, we need the rest – the vast majority – to stand up for it. While the conflict continues, I call on all parties to ensure full respect for international humanitarian and human rights law.

Attacks on civilians and civilian infrastructure must end. If they are deliberate, such attacks may constitute war crimes.

I stand in solidarity with civilians across the region, who are crying out for peace.

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');  

As the world edges closer to breaching key climate thresholds, Caribbean policymakers, scientists and civil society leaders gathered in Saint Lucia this month to coordinate the region’s position ahead of a landmark global meeting on transitioning away from fossil fuels. The two-day convening, held on 2–3 March, brought together civil society representatives and government officials […]

Máximo Torero, Chief Economist of Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), briefs the Security Council meeting on Conflict-related food insecurity: Framing the global dialogue: addressing food insecurity as a driver of conflict and ensuring food security for sustainable peace. Credit: UN Photo/Manuel Elías

By Naureen Hossain
UNITED NATIONS, Mar 27 2026 (IPS)

The current conflict in Iran and the Middle East region threatens to disrupt the global energy and agri-food sectors, as the closure of the Strait of Hormuz affects oil and fertilizer exports for farmers during critical harvest seasons.

The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) warns that if the war does not come to an immediate end, global markets could collapse from the high demands for oil and crops.

Within the next two weeks, global markets may be able to absorb the shocks brought on by the war thus far and could therefore minimize the risks of food insecurity, said FAO’s chief economist Máximo Torero.

“If this crisis continues for the next three to six months, then yes, it will have an impact not only on the food security sector; of course, energy will impact all other sectors and all other inputs that have been affected,” Torero said.

The Strait of Hormuz carries up to 30 percent of international trade fertilizers and up to 35 percent of global crude oil and natural gas. Premiums on the costs of these resources are increasing as the war continues in the region. Torero told reporters on Thursday that farmers face the “double choke” of higher prices on fertilizers and rising fuel prices, the latter of which is used by the value chain to produce the food available in markets. With limited supplies, farmers may be forced to adapt their crop cycle by reducing the amount of fertilizer or switch to crops that require less nitrogen fertilizer.

Credit: UN Trade and Development (UNCTAD).

Torero remarked that the immediate impact will be on the next season of crops, which will likely have fewer yields than before the war started. If the fighting concludes within a month, countries with higher reserves of fertilizers and fuels may mitigate shocks to the global markets. If the fighting lasts three months and the Strait of Hormuz stays closed, the shocks will be global and harder to manage. The consequences could include fewer yields from crops and more pressure on global exporters such as the United States, Brazil and Australia. As oil prices increase, this may encourage farmers to switch to biofuels to help meet the demands for crops. Yet such actions may also cause higher consumer prices.

When it comes to the war’s impact in the region, Torero reported that Iran was already dealing with high food prices before the fighting began, which it has only exacerbated. Meanwhile, for Gulf states such as Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, they are largely reliant on food imports and will face more challenges as there are no ships carrying imports through the channel.

Beyond the Middle East, FAO identified certain countries that will be impacted by fertilizer and fuel shortages, such as Sri Lanka and Bangladesh, which are currently in their respective rice harvest seasons, and sub-Saharan countries like Kenya and Somalia, which rely on 22 to 31 percent of fertilizer imports.

One area that will also be affected by the conflict is remittances. Migrant workers from South Asia and East Africa live and work in the Gulf states, including at airports and places of business that have been targeted by military strikes. Torero explained that if these workers cannot send money back to their households in their home countries, the resulting decline in remittance inflow will affect many countries where remittances make up a “significant share” of their GDP.

“There’s a significant amount of labor employment that comes from this region,” Torero said. “Now, if the airplanes are not flying… If the operations that used to flow through the airports are not happening, that will impact of course their economies, and that will impact all these temporary laborers that are working in those locations.”

The rich economies that attract migrant labor could be impacted, Torero said, and the workers whose families rely on remittances would also be severely affected.

While the war in the Persian Gulf continues to threaten the global energy, fertilizer and food markets, the international community is encouraged to take short- and long-term measures to mitigate the shock and protect vulnerable populations.

Torero and FAO recommended developing alternative trade routes to reduce dependence on the Strait of Hormuz. Vulnerable import-dependent countries, including low-income states, need support through emergency food aid, balance-of-payment support and targeted subsidies. Farmers should also be financed to maintain agricultural production and to prevent liquidity constraints.

Torero also recommended that states should diversify their import sources and promote regional coordination. He added that states need to build resilience in the future, which means investing in sustainable domestic agriculture and alternatives to fertilizers and preparing for structural market shifts that may result from prolonged instability.

“We need to treat food systems with the same strategic importance as energy and transport sectors and invest […] accordingly to minimize those shocks.”

IPS UN Bureau Report

 

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

By CIVICUS
Mar 27 2026 (IPS)

 
CIVICUS discusses Portugal’s presidential runoff election and the rise of the far-right Chega (Enough) party with Jonni Lopes, Executive Director of Academia Cidadã (Citizen Academy) and a Steering Committee member of the European Civic Forum, an organisation working on civic engagement, democratic participation and the protection of civic space at national, regional and international levels.

Jonni Lopes

On 8 February, Portugal held the second presidential runoff in its democratic history, and the first to feature a far-right candidate. Backed by a cross-party coalition spanning centre-left to centre-right, Socialist Party candidate António José Seguro defeated Chega leader André Ventura. The result was a significant rebuff to Ventura, but in just a few years Chega has changed from being a fringe movement into parliament’s second largest party, and continues to influence Portugal’s political landscape.

Why did centre-right voters back a Socialist candidate?

Despite not agreeing with his politics, centre-right voters backed a Socialist candidate to build a firewall around the presidency, recognising that the office demands deliberation, predictability and respect for democratic rules, none of which Chega represents. Seguro’s campaign made this possible. He distanced himself from party politics, avoided turning the race into a debate about the Socialist Party and positioned himself as a stable figure capable of providing institutional continuity during a political crisis.

This was practical risk management, not ideology. The centre-right Social Democratic Party is pushing labour law changes that triggered a joint general strike in December, with over three million workers participating. With Chega already holding significant parliamentary power, voters feared that a far-right president would go further still, using veto powers not to check the government’s agenda, but to entrench it and block any legislation protecting workers’ rights.

This coalition shows that a clear boundary against the far right still exists, at least when it comes to leading the state. It’s a defensive pact: democrats can disagree on policy, but there’s a line when it comes to handing power to a reactionary force that threatens democratic institutions.

What does the result mean for Portugal and Europe?

For Portugal, this result is a temporary reprieve for democracy. Seguro won two-thirds of the second-round vote and over 3.5 million votes, the most ever cast for a presidential candidate in Portugal, despite storms that disrupted voting. This shows that, faced with a genuine far-right threat, Portuguese democracy can still mobilise broadly to defend itself.

But this wasn’t a clear victory against the far right. Ventura won one-third of the vote, strengthened his base and positioned himself as a serious contender for right-wing leadership. In just a few years, Chega has gone from a fringe party to parliament’s second largest.

This sends a mixed message to Europe: broad democratic coalitions can still prevent far-right candidates reaching the top office, but the far right is now mainstream, shapes political agendas and forces other parties to constantly define themselves in relation to it. This is the new normal. This matters particularly for the European Commission, as far-right movements are structural threats and the only response is to strengthen the rule of law and democratic institutions.

Where does Chega go from here?

Ventura lost the presidential election, but Chega has emerged stronger. Winning a third of the vote against a candidate backed by the entire democratic spectrum cements its position. Ventura can now claim to speak for a significant portion of the right, and his loss only strengthens that claim, as he can frame the firewall as evidence that the political system is rigged against him, feeding narratives of elite persecution. He will also use his parliamentary strength to extract concessions by supporting or blocking the government’s budget and pushing on immigration and security, winning enough policy gains to show he delivers for his voters.

Ventura has already said that support for stability ‘has limits’. If the government hits serious problems, such as a budget crisis or a political deadlock, Chega will position itself as the only force willing to break the impasse and ‘fix things’. He’s not treating the presidential loss as the end of his political project but as a stepping stone to bigger gains in future elections. His calculation is that electoral legitimacy can eventually become governmental power.

What does this mean for civic space and civil society?

Portugal’s civic space is shrinking. Hate speech is becoming normalised, immigration rules are tightening, government administration is becoming more exclusionary, protest organisers face police intimidation and civil society organisations are struggling financially. These create real barriers to people exercising their rights. Chega’s rise and its racist and xenophobic rhetoric now heard in parliament raise the risk that discrimination and violence against migrants will become politically acceptable.

A president committed to rights protection can set limits: vetoing discriminatory laws, refusing to suppress information the public needs and protecting communities and organisations under attack. The presidency alone cannot reverse the shrinking of civic space, but it can prevent the government from fully institutionalising a far-right agenda.

Human rights organisations, labour movements and migrant groups see this moment as an opportunity to strengthen protections, not a final victory. Turnout held strong despite devastating storms and emergency conditions, evidence that people were genuinely mobilised by the threat, particularly urban voters connected to civil society, including unions, who had already fought the government over labour rights. The organisations that coordinated the strike now expect the president to use his powers to defend rights.

How should Seguro use his presidential powers?

Seguro has been clear he won’t be the reason parliament is dissolved, and has committed to working with the government while demanding ‘solutions and results’. This means dissolution of parliament will be a last resort in a genuine crisis, not a tactical move to tackle normal political disagreements. He will use his veto power to block laws he thinks violate the constitution and rights and mediate between the government and opposition to push them towards compromise.

The challenge will be to keep the democratic parties, both government and opposition, at the centre while Chega tries to dictate the agenda. If Seguro dissolves parliament too quickly or without a strong reason, he’ll just fuel Chega’s narrative that the system is broken. If he’s too passive and doesn’t use his veto when rights are threatened, he’ll look complicit in democratic erosion. Both scenarios would help Chega: either the system looks incapable of functioning, or it looks unwilling to defend people’s rights.

Seguro will have to walk a very fine line between doing too much and doing too little, while a far-right opposition waits to exploit whatever mistakes he makes. If he gets it wrong, his historic electoral victory will give way to deeper crisis rather than democratic renewal.

CIVICUS interviews a wide range of civil society activists, experts and leaders to gather diverse perspectives on civil society action and current issues for publication on its CIVICUS Lens platform. The views expressed in interviews are the interviewees’ and do not necessarily reflect those of CIVICUS. Publication does not imply endorsement of interviewees or the organisations they represent.

GET IN TOUCH
Website
Facebook
Instagram
LinkedIn
YouTube

SEE ALSO
Portugal’s far-right surge CIVICUS Lens 30.May.2025
‘Civil society must engage to prevent discussions devolving into demagoguery’ CIVICUS Lens | Interview with Jorge Máximo 28.May.2025
‘The rise of the populist right only further weakens trust in the political system’ CIVICUS Lens | Interview with Ana Carmo 19.Feb.2024

Over 8,554 grave violations against children have occurred in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories during the ongoing conflict. Credit: UN News

By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Mar 26 2026 (IPS)

The ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which began October 2023, has claimed the lives of more than 73,600 Palestinians and about 1,195 Israelis. But there are widespread charges accusing Israel of war crimes, genocide, torture and the abuse of Palestinian detainees in Israeli jails.

But these crimes continue despite warnings and condemnations by international bodies—including the United Nations, the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the Human Rights Council—with none of them having the power of enforcement.

A question at the UN press briefing March 24 highlighted a horrible crime unprecedented in any recent conflict.

Question: Multiple news outlets reported that Israeli soldiers tortured a one-year-old Palestinian child named Karim Abu Nasr in Gaza to pressure his father. The child reportedly suffered cigarette burns, marks, and nail wounds. Did you see this report?

UN Spokesperson Stephane Dujarric: I have seen the horrific description of that report, which clearly needs to be investigated, and reading the report itself is just horrific.

Dr. Alon Ben-Meir, a retired professor of international relations, most recently at the Center for Global Affairs at New York University, who taught courses on international negotiation and Middle Eastern studies, told Inter Press Service the report about the one-year-old (often described as 18 months old) Karim Abu Nassar being tortured by Israeli soldiers in Gaza is being widely carried by pro-Palestinian and regional outlets and is attributed to a specific named journalist and Palestine TV.

Multiple outlets however, including TRT World, Daily Sabah, Anadolu Agency syndication, and advocacy or solidarity networks, report a very similar narrative, said Dr. Ben-Meir.

The child, identified as Karim (or Jawad) Abu Nassar, was detained with his father near Al Maghazi in central Gaza. Palestine TV, citing a Gaza-based journalist, Osama al Kahlout, says Israeli soldiers tortured the child during the father’s interrogation, including extinguishing cigarettes on his leg, pricking him, and inserting a metal nail into his leg.

A medical report confirmed burn marks from cigarettes and puncture wounds from a nail. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) facilitated his release about 10 hours later, while the father remains detained, he said.

“Visual posts on social media show a toddler with bandaged or visibly injured legs, identified as Karim, which is consistent with the allegations of named local sources and official Palestinian media.”

Documented torture and ill treatment of Palestinian children

“There is substantial and mounting documentation that Israeli forces have systematically tortured, severely ill treated, or disappeared Palestinian children, including in Gaza since 7 October 2023,” said Dr. Ben-Meir.

Meanwhile, the UN Secretary General’s report on children and armed conflict documents over 8,000 grave violations against children in Israel and the occupied Palestinian territory, including verified cases of detention and ill treatment of Palestinian children by Israeli armed and security forces.

The same report notes 906 Palestinian children were detained in 2023, and that 84 children reported ill treatment during detention, along with reports of detention and sexual violence against children in Gaza.

Dr. Ramzy Baroud, Editor of Palestine Chronicle and former Managing Editor of the London-based Middle East Eye, told IPS “Dujarric is correct. This is horrific. In fact, it is beyond horrific. Equally frightening is that what has befallen this little boy, Karim, and his family is not an isolated incident but a repeated reality that has manifested itself in countless ways throughout the genocide.”

There are 21,000 ‘Karims’ who have been killed in the most brutal ways, he said. “Tens of thousands more have been wounded, maimed, or remain lifeless under the rubble of a fully destroyed Gaza.”

It is also horrific that those who tortured this one-year-old boy remain free to carry out further crimes. Those responsible for killing, torturing, and maiming Gaza’s children—and their parents—continue to face no accountability.

Equally disturbing, said Dr. Baroud, is that the United Nations, at best, can acknowledge the horror yet fails to stop it, rendering international law of no practical relevance to Palestinians.

“What use are words to those who have perished in the Israeli genocide of Gaza? What use are reports, discussions, investigations, and lamentations if the perpetrators are not held accountable?”

“I am familiar with the report, and as devastating as it is, it merely mirrors countless other accounts of children who have endured similar fates—and worse.”

Palestinians are demanding action. Without it, the horror will continue, no matter how many words are written or reports are produced to recognize it, declared Dr. Baroud.

Meanwhile, the UN’s special rapporteur on Palestine, Francesca Albanese, has called on the International Criminal Court (ICC) to pursue arrest warrants for three Israeli ministers she accuses of being responsible for “systematic torture” amounting to genocide.

In a new report presented to the UN Human Rights Council this week, Albanese names National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir, Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich and Defence Minister Israel Katz as the primary political figures involved in shaping policies that enabled the torture of Palestinians after 7 October 2023

Amplifying further, Dr. Ben-Meir pointed out that the Defense for Children International-Palestine (DCIP) in a 2025 report states that “Israeli forces killed, maimed, tortured, starved, abducted and displaced Palestinian children every single day in 2025″ and describes widespread torture and ill treatment of children at all stages of detention.

Gazan children were detained and transferred to facilities such as Sde Teiman, where they report being stripped, starved, beaten, confined in cages, subjected to electric shocks, beaten with sticks, and exposed to a “disco room” with deafening music and random assaults—acts that meet standard legal definitions of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, he said.

These accounts are based on multiple child testimonies and legal documentation and are presented as evidence of criminal conduct and war crimes.

“This report is also confirmed by Israeli soldiers who served in Gaza during the war, with whom I spoke.”

Use of children as human shields and related abuse

Peer-reviewed and legal analyses, said Dr. Ben-Meir, also document episodes where Israeli forces used Palestinian children as human shields, which is itself a war crime and frequently accompanied by physical and psychological abuse.

Such practices, given the threats and harm involved, qualify as torture under international law. Tragically, it is a longstanding pattern of abuse of Palestinians, with children among the victims, by Israeli forces.

How to frame this as war crimes

Under the Convention against Torture and the Rome Statute, intentionally inflicting severe physical or mental pain for purposes such as obtaining information or confessions, punishing, intimidating, or coercing, when carried out by state agents in an armed conflict, constitutes torture and a war crime and, when widespread or systematic, can be a crime against humanity.

The Sde Teiman practices—electric shocks, starvation, severe beatings, and sensory torture—clearly meet the same threshold at scale. Coupled with UN-verified patterns of child detention and ill treatment and documented use of children as human shields.

The Karim case, as reported, fits that definition almost perfectly: a state agent intentionally inflicts severe pain on a toddler in front of his father, specifically to force a confession, he said.

“The evidentiary picture strongly supports the argument that Israel has committed war crimes and crimes against humanity involving children,” declared Dr. Ben-Meir.

IPS UN Bureau Report

 

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

By A. K. Abdul Momen
NEW JERSEY, USA, Mar 26 2026 (IPS)

Who benefits from a war of choice against Iran?

The immediate political winners may include President Donald Trump and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. But if the war continues for a longer period, the political consequences for both Trump and Netanyahu could be uncertain. However, the most consistent beneficiaries are defense contractors, defense manufacturers and military lobbyists, who profit regardless of the outcome.

A. K. Abdul Momen

The primary losers are the countries of the Middle East and the broader Muslim world. Most importantly, the residents and citizens of Iran, Israel and its neighborhood countries are most directly affected by the relentless bombardment, pounding and missile attacks besides the soldiers of both sides. Millions of them are uprooted from their homes, spend nightmares till the war is over.

Despite vast reserves of oil and gas, the very engines of global prosperity—many nations across the region continue to face instability, poverty, and insecurity. From Palestine to Yemen, and from Iraq to Afghanistan, millions lack basic necessities, including food, safety, and economic opportunity.

In fact, millions of people in Muslims countries like Bahrain, UAE, Qatar, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Oman, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Syria, Algeria, Tunisia, Nigeria, Indonesia, Malaysia, Bangladesh, etc have been suffering from war and terror, from food deficiency and safety and security of life and liberty.

No wonder, their wealth often flows outward, with elites investing in more stable, non-Muslim countries rather than building productive industries, infrastructure, or research capacity at home. Their investment, if any, in their home countries or Muslim communities are mostly concentrated in building a mosque, a prayer house or a madrassa for poor students.

They are reluctant to build a hospital, a road, a manufacturing or industrial plant, a bridge, a technical school or a research center. This imbalance contributes to long-term structural weakness.

A critical question emerges: what ensures national security?

Increasingly, it appears that states possessing nuclear weapons and long-range missile capabilities enjoy greater deterrence and stability. The case of North Korea illustrates this paradox.

Despite isolation and adversaries, it maintains regime security through nuclear capability. This raises a troubling implication: does survival in today’s world require nuclear armament? Should their leadership acquire nuclear capability to safeguard their national security and stability?

The consequences of a U.S.-Israel conflict with Iran would extend far beyond the battlefield. Even after hostilities end, the region would likely face prolonged economic damage, weakened infrastructure, and fractured political trust.

Countries such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, Iraq, Oman, Lebanon and Iran could suffer severe economic disruption and internal instability.

Moreover, the strategic dynamics of such a conflict risk deepening divisions within the Muslim world itself. Military actions and retaliations particularly involving foreign bases in regional states could lead to intra-regional damage, further destabilizing already fragile alliances.

Another question, should leadership allow foreign bases in its home turf to guarantee national security? Or will it welcome more insecurity and conflict? Should leadership deny foreign bases in its own territory? Can they avoid such bases?

In case of Bangladesh, the ousted popular Prime Minister of Bangladesh Sheikh Hasina refused her territory to be used as a military base for a foreign government and it cost her job, her government was overthrown. Can they afford to deny a powerful foreign government?

From a geopolitical perspective, wars of this nature often reshape control over resources and influence. Economic motivations particularly access to energy and mineral resources cannot be overlooked in understanding strategic decision-making.

This leads to a deeper ethical question: do power and victory ultimately outweigh principles such as justice, human rights, and moral leadership? Ethics, human rights, fairness and morality are these the sermons of the weak and priests only? Does Machiavelli sounds right— survival of the fittest?

In fact, the logic often resembles the political realism associated with Niccolò Machiavelli—where success is measured by survival and dominance rather than ethical conduct. Machiavelli describes a sneaky, cunning, and manipulative personality that uses deceit, duplicity, and unethical methods to achieve goals often in politics and business as a success story.

And history tends to remember the victors only. Yet the long-term cost—human suffering, instability, and moral compromise—raises the question of whether victory alone defines true leadership.

Professor Dr. A. K. Abdul Momen is Former Foreign Minister of Bangladesh

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: Sanjit Pariyar/NurPhoto via AFP

By Andrew Firmin
LONDON, Mar 25 2026 (IPS)

Less than six months after Nepal’s Generation Z rose up in protest, the country has a new prime minister. A 35-year-old former rapper who soundtracked the protests swept to power in a landslide in the 5 March election.

Balendra Shah defeated former prime minister KP Sharma Oli, whose third stint as prime minister was cut short by the protests, beating him in his own turf. After years of fragile coalition governments, in which Sharma Oli and two other men of advancing age repeatedly swapped the role of prime minister, Nepal has chosen to change direction.

Gen Z-led protests

The September 2025 protests were triggered by the government’s banning of 26 social media platforms in an evident response to the ‘nepokids’ trend, in which people used social media to satirise the ostentatiously wealthy lifestyles of politicians’ family members, while most young people experienced daily economic struggles amid high inflation and youth unemployment. In a country where the median age is just 25, the ban was the final straw, activating long-simmering anger about corruption, poor public services and a political system that refused to listen to young people.

When young people took to the streets, the state unleashed violence. The deadliest day was 8 September, when some protesters broke into the parliamentary complex and police fired live military-grade ammunition, shooting many victims in the head. Nineteen people died that day, and overall at least 76 people died in the protests.

Rather than silence the protests, the state’s lethal crackdown swelled them, making clear this was about more than the social media ban; it was a struggle for Nepal’s future. Even more people took to the streets. On 9 September, Sharma Oli resigned. Some protesters turned to violence, while the army took over security and imposed a nationwide curfew. But events soon took a decisive turn. Chief Justice Sushila Karki was sworn in as interim prime minister on 12 September, kickstarting a process that led to the election. The interim government agreed to establish a Gen Z Council, a formal body designed to bridge the gap between the government and young people and enable them to hold it accountable and monitor implementation of reforms.

As the latest State of Civil Society Report sets out, Nepal’s movement inspired many of the year’s other Gen Z-led mobilisations. Nepali activists used the gaming platform Discord, including for a radical exercise in democracy that saw 10,000 people take part in online discussions that put forward Karki as interim prime minister. Morocco’s protesters also used Discord to coordinate their actions, while the Gen Z movement in Madagascar, where the army ultimately forced the government to quit, connected with Nepal’s Discord communities to learn from their organising. Movements in several countries adopted Nepal’s protest symbol, the skull-and-straw-hat flag from the One Piece manga, identifying themselves as part of the same global movement.

Around the world, Gen Z-led protests have commonly faced violent state repression but have forced real concessions: Bulgaria’s government quit, while politicians dropped unpopular policies in Indonesia and Timor-Leste. In Bangladesh, where a Gen Z-led protest movement ousted an authoritarian government in 2024, the country recently held its first credible election in almost two decades.

Time for change

The new energy unleashed by Nepal’s Gen Z-led protests was reflected in the registration of over 800,000 new voters, more parties standing than ever before, a profusion of younger candidates and an election campaign focused on corruption and good governance.

The result was a shock. Coalition governments are the norm in Nepal, but the centrist Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP) won an outright majority, taking 182 of 275 House of Representatives seats after a campaign that made intensive use of social media. The three established parties all sustained heavy losses.

Shah used his music to attack corruption and inequality, resonating with the Gen Z movement during the protests, when one of his songs was viewed over 10 million times on YouTube. But he isn’t a completely new political figure, having become mayor of the capital, Kathmandu, in a surprise result when he ran as an independent in 2022. His track record there suggests grounds for concern. He’s rarely made himself available for media questioning, preferring to communicate directly via social media, where he’s known for making controversial outbursts. He also received criticism for deploying police against street vendors and launching ‘demolition drives’ to clear illegally built structures with minimal notice, leading to clashes between police and locals.

Shah now has a mandate to deliver change, and expectations are high. But he faces the challenge of reforming a typically resistant bureaucracy while delivering on his economic promises amid difficult global conditions worsened by the Israeli-US war on Iran, which threatens the remittances sent by the many Nepali workers based in Gulf countries, which constitute one quarter of the country’s GDP. He’ll need to navigate the difficult foreign policy balance between Nepal’s two powerful and often antagonistic neighbours, China and India. The new government must also ensure accountability for human rights violations during the 2025 protests, starting with releasing the report of a commission set up to investigate protest deaths, which hasn’t yet been made public.

The obvious danger, given these challenges and an outsized mandate, is that the government will adopt a heavy-handed approach, pushing through change while failing to listen. This is precisely when civil society is needed, to step in to hold the new government to account and ensure it respects human rights, including the right to keep expressing dissent.

Nepal’s Gen Z movement must guard against co-option by the new administration. The new government must acknowledge the vital role of Nepal’s outspoken young generation by moving quickly to form and resource the Gen Z Council and fully respecting its autonomy. The movement that helped bring Shah to power must stay engaged.

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

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

 

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

Kaveh Madani, Director of the UN University’s Institute for Water, Environment and Health and lead author of the report entitled “Global Water Bankruptcy: Living Beyond Our Hydrological Means in the Post-Crisis Era” briefs reporters at UN Headquarters. Credit: UN Photo/Evan Schneider

By Umar Manzoor Shah
UNITED NATIONS, Mar 25 2026 (IPS)

Professor Kaveh Madani of Iran has been named the 2026 Stockholm Water Prize laureate. The award will be formally presented by King Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden in August during World Water Week in Stockholm.

The Stockholm Water Prize is widely regarded as the highest global honour in water science and policy. Often called the Nobel Prize for water, it recognises individuals and institutions for exceptional contributions to the sustainable use and protection of water resources. This year’s selection stands out for both scientific impact and the extraordinary personal journey of the laureate.

At 44, Madani is the first Muslim and the youngest recipient in the prize’s 35 year history. He is also the first United Nations official and the first former politician to receive the award.

Madani currently serves as Director of the United Nations University Institute for Water, Environment and Health. Once a senior official in Iran’s government, he later faced arrest, interrogation, and a sustained smear campaign that forced him to leave his country.

Born in Tehran in 1981, Madani grew up in a family deeply connected to Iran’s water sector. His early exposure to the country’s mounting water challenges shaped his academic direction. He studied civil engineering at the University of Tabriz before moving to Sweden to pursue a master’s degree in water resources at Lund University. He later earned a PhD from the University of California, Davis, followed by postdoctoral research at the University of California, Riverside.

By his early 30s, Madani had established himself as a leading systems analyst. He joined Imperial College, London, where his work focused on the mathematical modelling of complex human water systems. His research combined hydrology, economics, and decision sciences to improve policymaking in water management.

In 2017, he made a decisive move. Leaving a prestigious academic career in London, he returned to Iran to serve as Deputy Vice President and Deputy Head of the Department of Environment. Many viewed his appointment as a signal of reform and a bridge between Iran and its scientific diaspora.

During his tenure, Madani pushed for transparency and structural reforms in water governance. He used innovative public campaigns to raise awareness about environmental degradation. However, his efforts challenged entrenched interests.

State-aligned media accused him of espionage and labelled him a “water terrorist” and “bioterrorist”. Conspiracy theories circulated, linking him to foreign intelligence agencies and even to alleged weather manipulation schemes. His advocacy for international environmental agreements further intensified opposition.

In early 2018, a broader crackdown on environmental experts began. Madani was detained and interrogated multiple times. Several of his colleagues were arrested. One of them, Kavous Seyed Emami, died in custody under contested circumstances.

Facing mounting pressure, Madani left Iran and entered a period of exile. He joined Yale University, where he continued his research and advocacy. He began to focus more on bridging science and policy at the global level.

Madani’s academic contributions have been widely recognised. He is known for integrating game theory into water resource management. His work challenged traditional models that assumed cooperation among stakeholders. He demonstrated that individual incentives often lead to uncooperative behaviour, which makes many engineering solutions ineffective in practice.

This approach provided new tools to understand conflicts over shared water resources. It has been applied to transboundary water disputes and to policy design in regions with limited trust among stakeholders.

One of his most influential contributions is “water bankruptcy.” He introduced the term to describe a condition where water systems can no longer recover to their historical levels. Unlike a crisis, which implies a temporary disruption, water bankruptcy signals a long-term structural failure.

In a recent United Nations report, Madani argued that the world entered an era of global water bankruptcy in January 2026. The report highlighted that many river basins and aquifers have lost their capacity to regenerate. This framing has sparked debate among policymakers and researchers.

Madani uses simple financial language to explain complex ecological realities. He argues that humanity is no longer living off renewable water flows but is depleting long-term reserves. This framing has made the concept widely accessible and influential.

Beyond academia, Madani has built a strong public presence. With a large following on social media, he has used digital platforms to communicate scientific findings in accessible ways. His work includes documentaries and public campaigns aimed at increasing awareness and accountability.

He has also played key roles in international diplomacy. As Iran’s lead environmental diplomat, he participated in global negotiations and served as Vice President of the UN Environment Assembly Bureau in 2017. At the COP23 climate conference in Bonn, he called for greater attention to water in global climate agreements.

Today, as head of the United Nations water think tank, he continues to advocate for integrating water into climate and development policies. He has particularly focused on the Global South, where water stress closely links with food insecurity, migration, and conflict.

The Stockholm Water Prize Committee cited his “unique combination of groundbreaking research, policy engagement, diplomacy, and global outreach, often under personal risk” in awarding him the 2026 prize.

In an exclusive interview with Inter Press Service, Madani recalled the intense pressure and fear that defined his final days in Iran. He described repeated interrogations, surveillance, and a growing sense that his work had placed him in direct confrontation with powerful institutions.

Here are edited excerpts from the interview: 

IPS: You introduced the idea of “water bankruptcy.” How does this change how governments must act today?

Madani: Water bankruptcy is defined as a post-crisis state of failure in which the system is suffering from insolvency, meaning that water use has been more than the available water for an extended period, and also irreversibility, meaning that there are some damages to the ecosystem and the machinery of water production that are irreversible and cannot be fixed.

What that means is that some of the things that used to be just anomalies and abnormal conditions are now the new normal, and we’re no longer experiencing only a temporary deviation from what we are used to, but we have a situation that we have to get used to. Crisis management is about mitigation.

Bankruptcy management is about mitigating what can still be mitigated and adapting to new realities with more restrictions. Bankruptcy management calls for an honest confession, the admission of a confession that a mistake has been made, and the current business model is not working, so it calls for honestly admitting to the mistakes made and transforming the business model, that calls for a fresh new start and a change of course.

It is bitter. Bankruptcy is not a pleasant condition but admitting to it helps us prevent further irreversible damages and enables a future that is less catastrophic.

IPS: You faced arrest, exile, and serious accusations in Iran. What kept you going during that period?

Professor Madani: Hope. Hope is what kept me going because I had gone back there to help and at least at the start, I was trying to take what was happening to me as part of the job and as part of the adventure because I was there to make a positive impact, and if I had given up too quickly, then that would not have matched my essential motivation to help.

I knew that it would not be a very smooth path, but it turned out to be much more bumpy than what I had anticipated, and I think many also, you know, those who made that situation bumpy for me, also regret that today, but by the time they realised mistakes were made, it was too late to do anything about it.

Can you recall your arrest and interrogation? What do you remember most from that experience, and how did it affect you personally?

I think arrests and interrogations are very frustrating, especially when you haven’t done anything wrong.

What kills you is constantly worrying about what others think of you and coming up with different scenarios and conspiracy theories. Dealing with conspiracy theories and proving them wrong is not easy. Those were very hard times for me, but as you know, my background is in behaviour analysis. I was trying to put myself in the shoes of those who were suspicious of me, understand their concerns, and address them so I could help my homeland.

IPS: Many countries still treat water stress as a temporary crisis. What are the biggest policy mistakes they continue to make?

Madani: Yes, crisis management is all about mitigation. Those who deny the crisis and enter the bankruptcy state continue to borrow more from nature, build more infrastructure, dig deeper wells, add additional reservoirs and storage capacity, implement more water transfer projects and build more, and construct more desalination plants. Continuing to add to their supply, on the other hand, they think things would be temporary, and through some sort of rationing, things would be solved, but the continuation of that behaviour and the denial of that reality makes the problem worse.

They get drained into a deepening problem, and again, like the financial world, if your business model is not working and you’re in denial, you continue taking more loans and your expenses and your debt become higher and higher. By the time that people realise that there is no way out of that chaos and that failure, the cost is much, much higher. Remaining in denial would result in major significant irreversible damages that generations would have to pay for.

IPS: You combined science with diplomacy and public outreach. Which of these has had the most real impact on decision-making?

Professor Madani: It’s very hard to really say which one has the most impact, because they’re very complementary. The science is very good, but it’s not enough for decision-making. You still have to understand what the real world looks like and how incentives shape behaviour and actions and how interests promote conflicts and cooperation to be able to act.

Science, of course, opens doors and puts more solutions on the table, but still, without understanding the politics or navigating through politics, it would not work. Diplomacy is another one when it comes to the international scale; even when it comes to negotiating with stakeholders, that’s a skill that would be extremely helpful. So, in a way, these are the things that you need.

And on top of these, public outreach educates you about perceptions, how people and societies understand problems, how they judge different situations, and how their emotions and their perceptions shape their beliefs, and that tells you what you need to do when it comes to communicating your science better, changing their opinion, impacting their opinion, and even negotiating with them or convincing them that things might be different or a different pathway is required. I think they all help you create a recipe for something that might work.

IPS: Your work focuses on human behaviour in water management. Why do technical solutions alone often fail?

Madani: A lot of times, technical solutions developed by our computer models or in our labs don’t take into account the full elements of reality. When humans are involved, we deal with different motives, incentives, emotions, and psychologies, and that makes – that creates – some essentially unexpected realities that might tweak things. Simply put, a lot of times when it comes to developing a solution for a water problem or an environmental solution or a sustainability solution, we think that everyone agrees to making short-term sacrifices for the sake of long-term resilience, but that is not the case in reality because different stakeholders, different groups, farmers, urban users, and industrial users also have short-term goals.

They maximise profit, make sure that the quality of life is not impacted, and so on, which makes them non-cooperative to an extent. And if you miss this reality, then you think that the solution, the optimal solution, is very practical and everyone would cooperate, but then you get very disappointed.

Yet, you can take that into account to the extent possible, try to understand the behavioural element and incorporate those into your assessment and projections to be able to align those incentives and motives with the long-term interest to offer a solution that is more attractive and win-win.

IPS: You now advise governments globally. What is the one urgent action every water-stressed country must take in the next five years?

Madani: I think that by now, countries must understand the importance of water as an essential resource for establishing peace, national security, justice, prosperity, and development. I mean, it supports human development, health, and long-term resilience in society. So, countries must not take it for granted and understand that technological solutions would not be sufficient to address shortages.

They must revisit their practices. They must do a proper accounting to understand what, what’s, and how water is currently being spent and if it’s strategic – strategically speaking, that is the right way of doing things when it comes to matters of national security and long-term resilience. Bankruptcy management starts with accounting and transparency.

That’s something that is missing in many water-stressed and non-water-stressed countries, and I think that’s something that we can focus on, put the lens of science on, and not be afraid of accounting and measuring and monitoring what is happening in the system because that knowledge is required if you want to make improvements.

IPS: Thank you very much for taking the time and speaking to IPS  and congratulations again for the well-deserved award.

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');  

Excerpt:

It was hope that kept me going. – Professor Kaveh Madani 

By Asoka Bandarage
COLOMBO, Sri Lanka, Mar 25 2026 (IPS)

Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter prohibits member states from using threats or force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. Violating international law, the United States and Israel attacked Iran on February 28, 2026. The ostensible reason for this unprovoked aggression was to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.

The United States is the first and only country to have used nuclear weapons in war, against Japan in August 1945. Some officials in Israel have threatened to use a “doomsday weapon” against Gaza. On March 14, David Sacks, billionaire venture capitalist and AI and crypto czar in the Trump administration, warned that Israel may resort to nuclear weapons as its war with Iran spirals out of control and the country faces “destruction.”

Although for decades Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, opposed nuclear weapons on religious grounds, in the face of current existential threats it is likely that Iran will pursue their development.

On March 22, the head of the WHO warned of possible nuclear risks after nuclear facilities in both Iran and Israel were attacked. Indeed, will the current war in the Middle East continue for months or years, or end sooner with the possible use of a nuclear weapon by Israel or the United States?

Widening Destruction

Apart from the threat of nuclear conflagration—and what many analysts consider an impending ground invasion by American troops—extensive attacks using bombs, missiles, and drones are continuing apace, causing massive loss of life and destruction of resources and infrastructure. US–Israel airstrikes have killed Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and top Iranian officials.

Countless civilians have died, including some 150 girls in a primary school in Minab, in what UNESCO has called a “grave violation of humanitarian law.” Moreover, the targeting of desalination plants by both sides could severely disrupt water supplies across desert regions.

Iran’s retaliatory attacks on United States military bases in Persian Gulf countries have disrupted global air travel. Even more significantly, Iran’s closure of the Strait of Hormuz—the critical maritime energy chokepoint through which 20% of global oil and liquefied natural gas pass daily—has blocked the flow of energy supplies and goods, posing a severe threat to the fossil fuel–driven global economy.

A global economic crisis is emerging, with soaring oil prices, power shortages, inflation, loss of livelihoods, and deep uncertainty over food security and survival.

The inconsistent application of international law, along with structural limitations of the United Nations, erodes trust in global governance and the moral authority of Western powers and multilateral institutions. Resolution 2817 (2026), adopted by the UN Security Council on March 12, condemns Iran’s “egregious attacks” against its neighbors without any condemnation of US–Israeli actions—an imbalance that underscores this concern.

The current crisis is exposing fault lines in the neo-colonial political, economic, and moral order that has been in place since the Second World War. Iran’s defiance poses a significant challenge to longstanding patterns of intervention and regime-change agendas pursued by the United States and its allies in the Global South.

The difficulty the United States faces in rallying NATO and other allies also reflects a notable geopolitical shift. Meanwhile, the expansion of yuan-based oil trade and alternative financial settlement mechanisms is weakening the petrodollar system and dollar dominance.

Opposition within the United States—including from segments of conservatives and Republicans—signals growing skepticism about the ideological and moral basis of a US war against Iran seemingly driven by Israel.

A New World Order?

The unipolar world dominated by the United States—rooted in inequality, coercion, and militarism—is destabilizing, fragmenting, and generating widespread chaos and suffering. Challenges to this order, including from Iran, point toward a fragmented multipolar world in which multiple actors possess agency and leverage.

The BRICS bloc—Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, along with Iran, the UAE, and other members—represents efforts to create alternative economic and financial systems, including development banks and reserve currencies that challenge Western financial dominance.

However, is BRICS leading the world toward a much-needed order based on equity, partnership, and peace?

The behavior of BRICS countries during the current crisis does not indicate strong collective leadership or commitment to such principles. Instead, many appear to be leveraging the situation for national advantage, particularly regarding access to energy supplies.

A clear example of this opportunism is India, the current head of the BRICS bloc. Historically a leader of non-alignment and a supporter of the Palestinian cause, India now presents itself as a neutral party upholding international law and state sovereignty. However, it co-sponsored and supported UN Security Council Resolution 2817 (2026), which condemns only Iran.

India is also part of the USA–Israel–India–UAE strategic nexus involving defense cooperation, technology sharing, and counterterrorism. Additionally, it participates in the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (QUAD) with the United States, Japan, and Australia, aimed at countering China’s growing influence.

In effect, despite its leadership role in BRICS, India is closely aligned with the United States, raising questions about its ability to offer independent leadership in shaping a new world order.

As a group, BRICS does not fundamentally challenge corporate hegemony, the concentration of wealth among a global elite, or entrenched technological and military dominance. While it rejects aspects of Western geopolitical hierarchy, it largely upholds neoliberal economic principles: competition, free trade, privatization, open markets, export-led growth, globalization, and rapid technological expansion.

The current Middle East crisis underscores the need to question the assumption that globalization, market expansion, and technological growth are the foundations of human well-being.

The oil and food crises, declining remittances from Asian workers in the Middle East, and reduced tourism due to disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz and regional airspace all highlight the fragility of global interdependence.

These conditions call for consideration of alternative frameworks—bioregionalism, import substitution, local control of resources, food and energy self-sufficiency, and renewable energy—in place of dependence on imported fossil fuels and global supply chains.

Both the Western economic model and its BRICS variant continue to prioritize techno-capitalist expansion and militarism, despite overwhelming evidence linking these systems to environmental destruction and social inequality. While it is difficult for individual countries to challenge this dominant model, history offers lessons in collective resistance.

Collective Resistance

One of the earliest examples of nationalist economic resistance in the post- World War II period was the nationalization of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company and the creation of the National Iranian Oil Company in 1951 under Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh. He was overthrown on August 19, 1953, in a coup orchestrated by the US CIA and British intelligence (MI6), and Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was installed to protect Western oil interests.

A milestone for decolonization occurred in Egypt in 1956, when President Gamal Abdel Nasser nationalized the Suez Canal Company. Despite military intervention by Israel, the United Kingdom, and France, Nasser retained control, emerging as a symbol of Arab and Third World nationalism.

Following political independence, many former colonies sought to avoid entanglement in the Cold War through the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), officially founded in Belgrade in 1961. Leaders including Josip Broz Tito, Jawaharlal Nehru, Gamal Abdel Nasser, Kwame Nkrumah, Sukarno, and Sirimavo Bandaranaike promoted autonomous development paths aligned with national priorities and cultural traditions.

However, maintaining economic sovereignty proved far more difficult. Patrice Lumumba, the first democratically elected prime minister of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, was assassinated in 1961 with the involvement of US and Belgian interests after attempting to assert control over national resources. Kwame Nkrumah was similarly overthrown in a US-backed coup in 1966.

In Tanzania, Julius Nyerere’s Ujamaa (“African socialism”) sought to build community-based development and food security, but faced both internal challenges and external opposition, ultimately limiting its success and discouraging similar efforts elsewhere.

UN declarations from the 1970s reflect Global South resistance to the Bretton Woods system. Notably, the 1974 Declaration on the Establishment of a New International Economic Order (Resolution 3201) called for equitable cooperation between developed and developing countries based on dignity and sovereign equality.

Today, these declarations are more relevant than ever, as Iran and other Global South nations confront overlapping crises of economic instability, neocolonial pressures, and intensifying geopolitical rivalry.

Dr Asoka Bandarage has served on the faculties of Brandeis University, Georgetown University and Mount Holyoke College. She is the author of Crisis in Sri Lanka and the World: Colonial and Neoliberal Origins, Ecological and Collective Alternatives and many other publications (De Gruyter, 2023).

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 the time the auction begins at Nangurukuru fish market in Tanzania’s southern Lindi region, the crisis is already visible. Wooden canoes that once returned from the Rufiji River with heavy catches now bring only a fraction of what they used to. Traders scan for the long-whiskered catfish that once defined the market but find […]

The WTO reform agenda is a distraction. The real prize is dismantling MFN through plurilateral precedents. Credit: WTO

By Chien Yen Goh and Kinda Mohamadieh
GENEVA, Mar 24 2026 (IPS)

As trade ministers gather in Yaoundé, Cameroon, for the WTO’s 14th Ministerial Conference (MC14) on 26–29 March 2026, the preparatory process has produced a dense fog of competing reform proposals, draft ministerial statements, and work plans.

The facilitator-led consultations at the WTO headquarters in Geneva focused for the past few weeks on decision-making, development and Special and Differential Treatment (S&DT), as well as level-playing-field issues, while the United States, European Union and others tabled their own reform submissions.

The sheer volume and scope of this activity have muddied the picture of what exactly requires ministerial attention and decision.

This confusion, however, serves a purpose. It obscures the fact that the U.S. — which has done more than any other member to destabilise the multilateral trading system through unilateral tariffs, bilateral Agreements on Reciprocal Trade (ARTs), and paralysing the WTO Appellate Body — is not primarily interested in the reform or continued relevance of the WTO.

Its 2026 Trade Policy Agenda, released earlier this month, makes this plain: the US will push to reorient the WTO’s negotiating function by “favouring meaningful plurilateral agreements” and “urging reassessment of the Most Favoured Nation (MFN) principle” so that trading nations can differentiate among partners in their liberalisation commitments.

The MFN rule is the foundational principle of the WTO that requires any trade advantage granted to one WTO member to be extended equally to all. The U.S. WTO reform paper submitted to the General Council in December 2025 (WT/GC/W/984) goes further, arguing that MFN “is not just unsuitable for this era” but actively prevents countries from optimising their trade relationships.

Outside the WTO, the U.S. is pursuing its trade interests through bilateral ARTs with Bangladesh, Cambodia, Indonesia, Malaysia and others. Since its Supreme Court struck down the legal basis for these ARTs, section 301 of the U.S. 1974 Trade Act has been activated. But within the WTO, the U.S. priority at MC14 is more focused and consequential than the reform agenda suggests.

The immediate objective is to secure adoption of the plurilateral Investment Facilitation Agreement (IFA) into the WTO’s legal architecture under Annex 4 of the Marrakesh Agreement — despite the U.S. not having participated in the IFA negotiations and having no interest in being a party to it. U.S. Ambassador Joseph Barloon identified the IFA as one of a limited number of issues the U.S. wants decided at MC14.

Why would the US push through an agreement it will not sign? Because the IFA is not the end but the means. Its incorporation into the WTO — while its initiation, negotiation and addition have been formally contested — would establish that plurilateral agreements can be adopted and added to the WTO rulebook without the consent of all members. Once that door is opened, the principle of consensus in WTO agenda-setting and rule-making is effectively undermined.

This is precisely what the U.S. wants. Its December 2025 reform submission argues that plurilateral agreements should allow “likeminded trading partners committed to fair and reciprocal trade” to strengthen ties “within the architecture of the WTO agreements,” with benefits limited to consenting parties — that is, on a non-MFN basis.

The paper warns that without a path for plurilaterals, the WTO is “not a viable forum for negotiating.” Read together with the Trade Policy Agenda’s call to reassess MFN, the logic is clear: plurilaterals are the vehicle through which the U.S. intends to displace MFN as the organising principle of the multilateral trading system. Members that cannot or choose not to join will simply be left out.

The second U.S. priority reinforces this trajectory. Washington is pressing developing countries to make permanent the moratorium on customs duties on electronic commerce transmissions. First adopted as a temporary measure in 1998, the moratorium was last renewed at MC13 in Abu Dhabi, where members agreed it would expire at MC14 or 31 March 2026. The U.S. now wants to lock it in permanently and expand the scope of digital goods and services beyond customs authorities.

The stakes are high and direct. UNCTAD has estimated that the moratorium costs developing countries up to $10 billion annually in foregone tariff revenue, with 95 per cent of the losses borne by developing countries. For many, customs duties constitute 10–30 per cent of total tax revenue — for some, over 50 per cent.

The primary beneficiaries are the large technology firms in developed countries that dominate cross-border digital trade. Making the moratorium permanent would formalise this revenue transfer and strip developing countries of policy space to regulate digital imports as the digital economy grows.

Both these issues — the IFA and the e-commerce moratorium — involve developing countries giving up something concrete (MFN treatment, consensus-based decision-making, effective say over agenda setting, customs revenue and regulatory autonomy) in exchange for nothing.

The U.S. is not offering concessions on agriculture, S&DT, or the longstanding mandated issues that matter to developing country Members. It is not proposing to fix the dispute settlement system it broke. It is leveraging reform to extract structural concessions that tilt the WTO’s institutional machinery in its favour, while pursuing its trade interests bilaterally.

Once plurilaterals are entrenched and the moratorium made permanent, the U.S. will have a freer hand to set the WTO agenda without negotiating with developing country and Least Developed Country members. S&DT, already under pressure from demands to end self-designation and narrow its application, will recede further as a meaningful principle and integral part of the negotiations.

The reform agenda, for all its complexity, is secondary to the structural question: will the WTO remain a consensus-based institution where MFN and consensus decision-making ensure the smallest member has a say? Or will it be refashioned into a platform for variable-geometry agreements where the powerful set the terms and the rest face compliance or exclusion?

Developing countries have fought for decades to preserve a multilateral trading system in which trade could serve as a tool for their development. That system is now under direct threat — not from its irrelevance, but from a deliberate strategy to hollow it out from within.

Chien Yen Goh and Kinda Mohamadieh are trade and investment lawyers at Third World Network (TWN) based in Geneva.

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 Jomo Kwame Sundaram and Kuhaneetha Bai Kalaicelvan
KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia, Mar 24 2026 (IPS)

In mid-1971, US President Nixon ended the dollar’s gold peg at $35 per ounce, triggering de-dollarisation. The 2025 gold and silver rush followed private speculators trying to profit from central banks hedging against perceived new risks.

Jomo Kwame Sundaram

De-dollarisation
Some believed that flexible exchange rates, replacing earlier fixed rates, would resolve the ‘Triffin dilemma’ of the ‘dollar system’, due to its role as world reserve currency.

Many believe OPEC was allowed to raise oil prices from 1972, on condition petroleum purchases would be settled in dollars. ‘Petrodollars’ were thus believed to be the ‘black gold’ underlying the dollar system’s survival after 1971.

Although still the dominant world reserve currency, the dollar’s role has gradually declined over the decades. Trump 2.0’s rhetoric and actions appear to have accelerated de-dollarisation.

Trump’s 2 April 2025 ‘Liberation Day’ tariffs announcement triggered even greater uncertainty and volatility in foreign exchange and other markets worldwide.

Greater policy unpredictability has caused governments and investors to explore new options. Authorities worldwide are considering and developing alternatives to the dollar system.

Besides higher inflation, Trump’s threats and actions, particularly his tariffs, sanctions and wars, have pushed investors to sell dollar assets and seek alternatives.

Various factors have significantly accelerated de-dollarisation. In the first half of 2025, the dollar fell by over 10%, its sharpest fall since the 1973 oil crisis.

K Kuhaneetha Bai

Many countries in the Global South have been purchasing gold rather than dollar-denominated assets for reserve accumulation.

Geopolitical economy commentator Ben Norton highlighted an April 2025 note by the Deutsche Bank foreign exchange research head, noting:

“We are witnessing a simultaneous collapse in the price of all US assets [including stocks, foreign exchange, and bonds] … we are entering uncharted territory in the global financial system…

“The market is rapidly de-dollarising. In a typical crisis environment, the market would be hoarding dollar liquidity…The market has lost faith in US assets. They are actively selling down their US assets.

“US administration policy is encouraging a trend toward de-dollarisation to safeguard international investors from a weaponisation of dollar liquidity.”

Western confiscations
The weaponisation of central banks by the US, Europe, and their allies has caused other central banks to seek ‘safety’ by switching from dollar assets to gold.

Increased weaponisation of the dollar and Western confiscation of others’ assets under various pretexts have accelerated this trend.

Billions of dollars’ worth of Venezuelan central bank gold, held at the Bank of England, was confiscated by the UK government during the 2019 Washington-instigated Caracas coup attempt.

After the coup failed, the Bank of England refused to return the gold to Venezuela. Trust in Western governments and central banks thus continued to erode.

Similarly, the US Fed and European Central Bank confiscated over $300 billion worth of Russian dollar-, euro- and sterling-denominated assets after it invaded Ukraine.

European authorities have since pledged to transfer these Russian assets to Ukraine rather than return them to their owners.

Western confiscations of the central bank reserves of Iran, Venezuela, Afghanistan, Russia and others have alarmed authorities and publics worldwide.

Central banks’ reserve managers have increasingly viewed gold as safe despite greater volatility. Besides serving as a hedge, the precious metal also offered lucrative speculative gains.

Mitigating risk
Many monetary authorities have reversed their earlier accumulation of dollar-denominated US Treasury bills and bonds in their official reserves.

While US government debt has continued growing, inflationary pressures have mounted, albeit episodically. Gold and silver holdings are believed to help hedge against inflation and fiat currency debasement.

Gold holdings in central bank reserves increased significantly after the 2008-09 global, actually Western, financial crisis, followed by the Western turn to ‘quantitative easing’.

For the first time in three decades, central banks’ total gold holdings in their international reserves exceeded their US Treasury bond holdings in 2025.

About 36,200 tons, or a fifth of all gold holdings, is now held by central banks, rising rapidly over two years from 15% at the end of 2023!

Meanwhile, rising gold prices drew more speculative investments for profit. But such price spikes are not sustainable indefinitely.

Once gold was seen as overpriced, investors turned to other precious metals, notably silver, and other financial assets.

BRICS’ golden hedge?
After Lord Jim O’Neill identified Brazil, Russia, India and China as significant new financial powers outside the Western sphere of influence, BRICS was formed in 2009 by adding South Africa.

BRICS now has ten members and ten partners. Together, they account for 44% of world income, measured by purchasing power parity, and 56% of its people.

Russia, China, and India have been among the largest recent buyers of gold. Other major purchasers include Uzbekistan and Thailand, both BRICS partners.

Trump 2.0 has generated significant apprehension internationally. Without BRICS’ help, his weaponisation of economic policies and agreements has accelerated de-dollarisation.

Although Trump accuses the BRICS of conspiring to accelerate de-dollarisation, their precious metal purchases make sense as a hedge for their reserves.

IPS UN Bureau

 

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

• World Must Pay to Make America Great Again
• Weaponizing Food Worsens Starvation
• Trump Wants World to Subsidise US Empire
• America First Deepens World Stagnation
• New Geopolitics Worse for Global South
• Weaponizing Free Trade Agreements
• SWIFT Dollar Decline
• US Leads Sanctions Killing Millions to No End
• Sanctions Now Weapons of Mass Starvation
• Trade, Currency War Weapons Double-Edged
• What’s different about Trump’s tariffs?
• Trump’s Trade War in Perspective

By James Alix Michel
VICTORIA, Seychelles, Mar 23 2026 (IPS)

When the 11th Our Ocean Conference opens in Mombasa and Kilifi, Kenya, from June 16-18, 2026, it will mark the first time this influential meeting has been held on African soil. For coastal and island nations across the continent and the wider Indian Ocean – and for the Global South more broadly – the stakes could not be higher: the promises and commitments made there will help decide whether the ocean becomes a source of justice and resilience, or deepens existing inequalities.

James Alix Michel

And the most recent report by the UN, indicates that Planet Earth is being pushed beyond its limits. Every key climate indicator is flashing red as it continues to overheat .

Since its launch in 2014, the Our Ocean Conference has generated a steady stream of commitments on marine conservation, sustainable fisheries, climate action and pollution control. Billions of dollars have been pledged for marine protected areas, surveillance, research and community projects. Yet, for many communities in the Global South, the reality at sea has often changed far less than the rhetoric on land. Overfishing, climate-driven ecosystem shifts and pollution continue to undermine food security and livelihoods, while benefits from the “blue economy” still tend to flow upwards to those with capital and technology.

I know this process intimately. In 2018, at the Our Ocean Conference in Bali, Indonesia (October 29–30), I was honoured to be invited by renown Philanthropist, Dona Bertarelli, and named one of the founding Pew-Bertarelli Ocean Legacy Ambassadors, alongside John Kerry, former US Secretary of State, and David Cameron, former UK Prime Minister, Heraldo Munoz former Chilean minister of Foreign Affairs and Carlotta Leon.

Our central mission was to champion large-scale marine protected areas (MPAs).

Under my presidency of Seychelles (2004–2016), we set a global example for the Global South. At Rio+20 in 2012, we announced our bold commitment to protect 30% of our 1.35 million km² Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) by 2020 – a full decade ahead of today’s global 30×30 targets. We launched the Seychelles Marine Spatial Plan (SMSP) process in 2014, involving 265 stakeholder consultations and over 100 GIS data layers, culminating in 410,000 km² (30% of our EEZ, an area larger than Germany) designated as Marine Protected Areas in March 2020, with the full SMSP becoming legally binding across our entire EEZ on March 31, 2025. We also pioneered the world’s first sovereign blue bond in October 2018 – a US$15 million issuance (with $21.6 million debt-for-nature swap via The Nature Conservancy) that reduced our borrowing costs from 6.5% to 2.8% while funding fisheries governance, marine protection and blue economy projects through SeyCCAT and the Development Bank of Seychelles.

Mombasa’s significance lies not only in geography but in timing. The High Seas Treaty – formally the BBNJ Agreement entered into force on the 17th January this year having reached 60 ratifications in 2025.

The Treaty offers, for the first time, a framework to create marine protected areas and regulate potentially harmful activities in areas beyond national jurisdiction, which cover nearly half the planet and play critical roles in climate regulation and biodiversity. For African and other developing countries, the way this agreement is implemented will test whether “common heritage of humankind” can move from slogan to reality.

Seychelles was among the first African nations to ratify BBNJ, advocating for high seas MPAs like the Saya de Malha Bank.

The treaty’s provisions on environmental impact assessments, area-based management tools, capacity-building and benefit-sharing will shape who gets to decide what happens on the high seas, and who gains or loses from emerging ocean industries. Without strong institutions, adequate financing and meaningful participation from the Global South, there is a risk that powerful states and corporations will dominate decision-making, reproducing on the ocean the same patterns of inequality seen on land.

The debate over deep-sea mining makes these concerns concrete. Proponents argue that mining polymetallic nodules and other deep-sea deposits could supply minerals needed for the energy transition.

But scientific assessments warn that such operations may cause long-lasting damage to seafloor habitats, disrupt carbon cycles and threaten species we have barely begun to study. Small-scale fishers, coastal communities and Indigenous peoples worry that the costs will be borne by those least responsible for climate change and least able to adapt.

In recent years, a broad coalition of states, scientists, civil society groups and youth movements has called for a precautionary pause or moratorium on commercial deep-sea mining in the Area. This demand is rooted in the precautionary principle and in a vision of the ocean as a living system, not just a stockpile of raw materials. For many in the Global South, it is also a justice issue: the world cannot repeat, in the deep sea, an extractive model that has left communities polluted and marginalised on land.

In Africa’s Indian Ocean, these debates are particularly urgent. Recently, I joined ocean Renown philanthropist and a strong advocate of Ocean Conservation , Dona Bertarelli in calling for a moratorium on deep-sea mining in Africa’s ocean, especially in the Indian Ocean. Our message to governments is that precaution and long-term stewardship must come before short-term profit – a principle Seychelles has applied through our SMSP and blue bonds.

Kenya has framed the 2026 conference under the theme “Our Ocean, Our Heritage, Our Future”, with a focus on jobs, equity and healthy oceans. This framing resonates across the Global South, where coastal and inland communities face converging crises of climate change, biodiversity loss and economic insecurity.

For the conference to be a turning point, African and other developing countries could push for three outcomes :

First, insist that BBNJ implementation be guided by equity: robust funding for capacity-building and technology transfer, transparent environmental assessments, and benefit-sharing that reaches frontline communities.

Second, unite behind a precautionary moratorium on deep-sea mining until independent science shows it can proceed without irreversible harm and robust global rules exist.

Third, demand commitments that improve lives: secure markets for small-scale fishers, nature-based solutions like mangrove restoration, climate-resilient infrastructure, and support for youth, women and Indigenous leadership. Seychelles proves this works – 30%+ EEZ protection with sustainable financing balancing ecology and equity.

Mombasa sits at the intersection of vulnerability and possibility, like coastal cities across the Global South. Hosting Africa’s first Our Ocean Conference offers a chance to centre perspectives of those who live with the ocean daily.

The test of Our Ocean 2026 will be whether it shifts power towards those most affected and committed to stewardship. For Africa, SIDS and the Global South, Mombasa is a moment to say: the ocean is not a frontier to be mined, but a living foundation for our survival and dignity.

James Alix Michel is the former President of Seychelles (2004–2016) and a global advocate for the blue economy, ocean conservation and climate resilience.

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');  

The world’s population is currently at a record high of 8.3 billion and is expected to continue growing throughout the 21st century, significantly impacting planetary sustainability. Credit: Shutterstock

By Joseph Chamie
PORTLAND, USA, Mar 23 2026 (IPS)

On planet Earth, world population in 2026 is 8.3 billion people, which is four times larger than it was a hundred years ago.

Despite this record number of humans living on the planet, world population is expected to continue increasing throughout the 21st century, significantly impacting planetary sustainability.

Over the past two hundred years, the human population on the planet has experienced unprecedented growth rates. For example, it took thousands of years for world population to reach the one billion mark at the beginning of the 19th century, in 1804.

In the subsequent centuries, the growth of world population accelerated with record high rates of demographic growth. It took approximately 123 years for the world’s population to increase from one billion to two billion and 47 years for the world population to double again, reaching four billion in 1974.

The time required for the subsequent billion additions to the world population was relatively short, approximately twelve years. In summary, the human population on planet Earth has increased five-fold since the beginning of the 20th century (Figure 1).

Source: United Nations.

United Nations population projections anticipate that world population will continue to grow throughout the 21st century. By around 2060, world population is expected to reach 10 billion, which is ten times the size it was in 1804. Furthermore, world population is projected to peak at 10.3 billion in 2084 and then slightly decrease to 10.2 billion by the end of the century.

As the world population has grown rapidly, the geographic distribution of billions of people across the planet has also significantly changed since the beginning of the 20th century.

Particularly notable are the changing proportions of the world’s population living in Africa and Europe. At the start of the 20th century, the proportions of the world’s population living in Africa and Europe were 8% and 25%, respectively. By the end of the 21st century, those proportions are projected to be 37% for Africa and 6% for Europe (Table 1).

Source: United Nations.

Another significant change involves the proportion of the world’s population living in Asia. At the beginning of the 20th century, around 60% of the world’s population lived in Asia. However, by the close of the 21st century, that proportion is expected to decrease significantly to 45%.

The proportions of the world’s population living in the other three major regions have been relatively stable, remaining in single digits. The proportions for Latin America and the Caribbean, Northern America and Oceania are approximately 8%, 5% and 1%, respectively.

The shifts in the global distribution of world population have led to significant economic, political, social, and environmental implications. Despite these important consequences, much attention in the media, business boardrooms, and government offices is focused on low fertility rates and the resulting population decline in many countries.

It is the case that more than half of the countries worldwide have fertility rates below replacement levels, leading to population decline and demographic ageing. However, the media often portrays a stable or smaller population in a negative light.

The consequences of the ongoing population growth, projected to reach 10.3 billion people by 2084, will lead to a complex mixture of global problems that many governments, unfortunately, typically ignore, dismiss, or minimize

In such reporting, terms like “weak” or “anemic” are used to describe moderate population growth, while “flat” or “stalled” are used for stable population. Additionally, those who warn of depopulation often predict a future crisis instead of discussing any positive relief from current environmental and climate concerns or the benefits for women and working families.

Many people, especially traditional economists and right-wing politicians, assume that population growth is essential for a flourishing economy. These individuals advocate for population growth because they believe it drives economic growth, increases the labor supply, and stimulates consumption.

The concern about the birthrate crisis is often fueled by those who benefit from a growing population. These individuals often provide information or central messages, such as population collapse, failing economies, demographic crisis, and human extinction, which are then picked up by the media and lead to misleading headlines.

Moreover, many government officials are calling for increased population growth through higher fertility rates and implementing policies and actions to support such outcomes. These calls, policies, and actions are primarily driven by concerns over demographic ageing, declining workforces, and economic sustainability.

In essence, their message is that a growing population leads to a larger economy, more entrepreneurs, market expansion, and innovation. Additionally, some government officials choose to focus on women and blame them for their country’s low birth rates.

In contrast, a stable population is often viewed as stagnant. The demographic ageing of populations and increased human longevity are seen as problematic, leading to a “demographic winter” with significant financial stresses on government budgets for pensions and health care for older individuals.

While the world’s population of 8.3 billion is projected to continue growing throughout most of the 21st century, low fertility rates and demographic ageing are seen as challenges rather than accomplishments.

Additionally, as the planet’s environmental and climate crises accelerate, large portions of society continue to ignore the fact that a world with more than 8 billion people is a critical factor driving them. These groups typically dismiss research findings indicating that a world population of 8 billion, which is continuing to increase, drives climate change, ecological disruption, rising sea levels, biodiversity loss, habitat destruction, resource scarcity, and food insecurity.

For example, global wildlife is currently facing a worsening crisis. The most recent United Nations assessment warns that nearly half of the world’s migratory animal species are declining due to human activity, habitat destruction, and climate change.

Moreover, melting glaciers in Antarctica are hastening sea-level rise in coastal cities. The Thwaites Glacier, in particular, is melting at an alarming pace. If it were to break apart completely and collapse today, it could raise global sea levels by 2 feet in the next few decades, affecting tens of millions of people worldwide.

In summary, the world’s population is currently at a record high of 8.3 billion and is expected to continue growing throughout the 21st century, significantly impacting planetary sustainability.

The consequences of the ongoing population growth, projected to reach 10.3 billion people by 2084, will lead to a complex mixture of global problems that many governments, unfortunately, typically ignore, dismiss, or minimize. These problems include resource strains, increased conflict, environmental damage, climate change, sea level rise, habitat destruction, biodiversity loss, food insecurity, increased unauthorized migration, and greater societal vulnerabilities.

Joseph Chamie is a consulting demographer, a former director of the United Nations Population Division, and author of many publications on population issues.

 

By CIVICUS
Mar 23 2026 (IPS)

 
CIVICUS discusses Nepal’s upcoming election with youth activist Anusha Khanal of the Gen Z Movement Alliance, a youth-led civil society coalition mobilising for democratic accountability and governance reform in Nepal.

Anusha Khanal

Following Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli’s resignation in response to mass Gen Z-led protests, Nepal goes to the polls on 5 March. Some 19 million people — including 837,000 new voters — will choose from 120 registered parties. With unemployment and governance failures eclipsing traditional ideological debates, anti-corruption and inclusion demands have dominated the campaign.

What triggered the Gen Z protests, and how did the state respond?

The immediate trigger was the government revealing its authoritarian tendencies by banning 26 popular social media platforms. This happened during the ‘nepokids’ trend, in which people exposed the wealth of politicians’ families, contrasting with widespread economic desperation. Inflation was high and unemployment among young people stood at around 23 per cent, and there were no pathways for change within existing political structures. But this wasn’t just about jobs. Young people demanded accountability for decades of corruption, poor governance, service delivery failures and a political system completely disconnected from our realities. The leaders of three parties had rotated in power for years without delivering anything meaningful. We mobilised because we had nothing to lose.

The response was brutal. On the first day of protests, police killed several young people. The government refused to show any responsibility, instead seeking to frame the movement as violent and deny it any legitimacy. It criminalised youth anger instead of listening to it. The choice to emphasise property damage over deaths when some buildings were burned and vandalised told us everything about where their priorities lay. The government showed it did not care about young people.

But repression didn’t stop the movement; it accelerated it. Thousands more young people mobilised, and eventually the pressure became impossible to ignore. Oli’s resignation was a forced concession. But it exposed something important: the political system only moves when threatened directly. That’s a lesson we’re carrying into these elections.

How did civil society organisations engage with the movement?

Young people created the movement, not civil society organisations. Once it started, we received a lot of support from wider civil society. It became a people’s movement, with people of all ages taking part, in person and in spirit. Many civil society groups made a conscious choice to support it, document what was happening, share knowledge, help shape narratives, amplify demands and help exert pressure to translate grassroots anger into political demands. We pushed for accountability, investigations into the killings, protection for protesters and systemic reforms around corruption and governance. We insisted that any negotiation include young people at the table, as stakeholders in decision-making.

A major win was a 10-point agreement with the interim government that included commitments to address corruption, improve governance, ensure youth participation in decision-making and move towards more inclusive democracy. We also pushed for the establishment of the Gen Z Council, a body designed to hold government accountable, monitor implementation of reforms and bridge the gap between the state and young people.

But we’ve been realistic about what civil society can and cannot do. We can organise, advocate, document and monitor. We cannot force a government to implement reforms if the bureaucracy resists or political will collapses after elections. That’s why we’re now focused on maintaining pressure and building systems that make it harder for future governments to ignore youth demands.

How have election candidates addressed the movement’s demands?

Anti-corruption and good governance have become dominant themes across party manifestos. All parties are talking about digital governance, e-governance, going cashless and paperless. Some are promising to establish commissions to investigate past corruption or audit public officials’ assets going back decades. Others focus on timecard systems for service delivery, budget transparency and digitisation of transactions. It’s just that corruption is so visible that ignoring it would be political suicide.

The problem is that most parties are vague on implementation. They describe the what but not the how. There are also ideological differences, but most parties are talking about systemic reform and public-private partnerships.

Across the board, parties are responding to the movement’s anti-corruption demand because they have to. The question is whether these commitments are genuine or just campaign rhetoric.

Why are women and excluded groups still so underrepresented among candidates?

Campaign financing is a massive problem. The government sets spending limits, but everyone knows that’s not what happens on the ground. To run a serious campaign with widespread reach, you need sponsorship from wealthy backers or business interests. If you’re a woman earning a minimum wage, you simply cannot compete against candidates funded by millionaires. There is no public financing system, no state support for candidates from marginalised backgrounds. The economic system excludes most women and poor people before we even get to party selection processes.

Safety is another critical issue that doesn’t get enough attention. Digital violence against women running for office is rampant. Women and queer candidates face abuse, harassment and threats online and offline. When we encourage female and queer colleagues to run, the response is often hesitancy, due to the lack of support and because we haven’t created safe enough spaces for them to participate in politics. Although the constitution guarantees women 33 per cent representation, the reality on the ground is completely different.

Then there’s the distribution of candidacy slots within parties, which is opaque and controlled by party leaders. Even after public pressure, many parties failed to meet the female quota in direct candidacies. Some did better in proportional representation slots, but even there, they selected women who are mostly well-connected and wealthy. The movement emphasised inclusion, but we’ve regressed when it comes to candidate selection.

What obstacles stand in the way of reform?

The first challenge is that we’re almost certainly heading towards a coalition government, which means compromise on every issue. When multiple parties have to negotiate and share power, reform agendas get watered down. Parties will prioritise holding their coalition together over pushing through the anti-corruption and governance reforms they promised. We’ve seen this pattern before. What isn’t clear yet is what kind of coalition will result and what compromises will be made.

The second challenge is the bureaucracy. Nepal’s bureaucracy can be notoriously resistant to change, transparency and accountability. A reform can pass parliament and still die in implementation because mid-level bureaucrats refuse to change how they work. Even though the law to establish the Gen Z Council has been passed, it hasn’t been formed yet. We can identify problems, document failures and advocate loudly, but we cannot force a government to act. If the bureaucracy decides to drag its feet, we have limited leverage. Structural incentives favour the status quo, and that’s before we even consider whether individual politicians will prioritise reforms over personal interests or patronage networks.

But we’re not giving up. Civil society’s role now is to maintain constant pressure, document what does and doesn’t get implemented and call attention when governments fail to keep their promises. The Gen Z Council gives us a formal mechanism to do this, and we can also raise our voices independently of it. We need to build broader coalitions, keep the movement’s demands visible in public discourse and make clear that if a government fails to deliver, there will be consequences. Real change is slow and difficult — but it’s possible if civil society stays organised and vigilant and doesn’t compromise on core demands.

CIVICUS interviews a wide range of civil society activists, experts and leaders to gather diverse perspectives on civil society action and current issues for publication on its CIVICUS Lens platform. The views expressed in interviews are the interviewees’ and do not necessarily reflect those of CIVICUS. Publication does not imply endorsement of interviewees or the organisations they represent.

GET IN TOUCH
Instagram
Anusha Khanal/LinkedIn

SEE ALSO
Nepal’s Gen Z uprising: time for youth-led change CIVICUS Lens 10.Oct.2025
‘The government was corrupt and willing to kill its own people to stay in power’ CIVICUS Lens | Interview with Dikpal Khatri Chhetri 02.Oct.2025
‘The Social Network Bill is part of a broader strategy to tighten control over digital communication’ CIVICUS Lens | Interview with Dikshya Khadgi 28.Feb.2025

 

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

Opening of the Commission on the Status of Women (CSW70)
 
Shaped by ongoing dialogue, the CSW70 highlighted progress and diverse perspectives on gender and justice.

By Fernanda Lagoeiro
SAO PAULO, Brazil, Mar 23 2026 (IPS)

The 70th session of the Commission on the Status of Women (CSW70) (March 9-19), held at the United Nations headquarters, brought together governments, decision makers, civil society, and international organizations to address a central issue: access to justice for women and girls.

Taking place in a complex global context, the session reflected both the continued relevance of multilateral cooperation and the evolving nature of discussions on gender equality. As noted in UN remarks during the session, “this year’s theme cuts to the heart of the struggle for equality: access to justice,” giving emphasis on the importance of strengthening legal systems and ensuring that rights are effectively realized.

Sustaining momentum on Gender Equality

One of the key outcomes of CSW70 was the adoption of the Agreed Conclusions, which reaffirm the international community’s commitment to advancing gender equality and improving access to justice worldwide.

While the conclusions were adopted through a recorded vote (an approach less common in CSW processes) the result demonstrated broad support among member states for maintaining and advancing existing frameworks.

Observers noted that the outcome reflects a continued global commitment to the principles first established at the Fourth World Conference on Women and articulated in the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action.

Civil society organizations also welcomed the outcome, highlighting that the adoption of the conclusions signals that cooperation remains possible, even in a changing geopolitical landscape.

Focusing on access to justice

Discussions throughout the session emphasized that access to justice extends beyond legal frameworks. It includes the ability of women and girls to navigate institutions, obtain remedies, and be protected under the law.

Globally, women have achieved significant legal advancements over the past decades, yet disparities persist in many regions.

As emphasized by UN officials, “no country in the world has achieved full legal equality,” reinforcing the importance of continued efforts at national and international levels.

This shared recognition helped anchor discussions in practical solutions, including strengthening judicial systems, expanding legal aid, and addressing barriers faced by marginalized groups.

Evolving discussions and diverse perspectives

CSW70 also reflected the diversity of perspectives among Member States on how best to advance gender equality.

A number of proposals were introduced during negotiations addressing definitions, policy language, and implementation approaches. These included discussions on how to frame gender, how to address sexual and reproductive health and rights, and how to reflect different national contexts in global agreements.

While not all proposals were incorporated into the final text, the process itself illustrated the dynamic nature of multilateral dialogue. It also highlighted the importance of balancing shared global commitments with national priorities and legal frameworks.

Observers noted that such discussions, while sometimes complex, are part of the ongoing evolution of international cooperation.

The use of a recorded vote, rather than consensus, marked a notable procedural development at CSW70. The session also included discussions around procedural options, such as potential amendments or motions that could influence the negotiation process.

While these mechanisms are part of standard UN practice, their consideration reflects the range of tools available to Member States in shaping outcomes.

The role of civil society

Civil society organizations played an active and visible role throughout the session, while still with a limited space, but contributing expertise, advocacy, and on-the-ground perspectives.

While formal negotiations are led by Member States, civil society contributions helped inform discussions and maintain focus on implementation and accountability. Participants widely recognized that continued collaboration between governments and civil society will be essential for translating commitments into tangible outcomes.

Global South perspectives and contributions

Delegations from regions including Latin America, Africa, and Asia worked to ensure that the outcomes reflected diverse realities and development contexts. In particular, coordination among Latin American countries (including Brazil and Chile) supported regional dialogue and helped maintain constructive engagement throughout the session. Brazilian organizations brought new projects and perspectives around climate resilience to high-level representatives.

These contributions highlight the growing influence of Global South actors in multilateral spaces, not only as participants but as key contributors to consensus-building and policy development. At the same time, the diversity within the Global South itself underscores the importance of inclusive dialogue that reflects a wide range of experiences and priorities.

Areas for continued attention

Alongside its achievements, CSW70 also pointed to areas where further work may be needed.

Differences in perspectives on certain issues (such as specific policy language or implementation approaches) indicate that continued dialogue will be important in future sessions. These discussions reflect the complexity of advancing global agreements in a diverse international community.

Additionally, the evolving nature of negotiations suggests an opportunity to further strengthen mechanisms for collaboration and consensus-building.

Looking ahead

CSW70 reaffirmed the importance of sustained international cooperation in advancing gender equality and access to justice. While the session did not resolve all differences, it demonstrated that progress remains possible through dialogue, engagement, and shared commitment.

As the global community continues to build on the foundations established by the Beijing Platform for Action, the focus will remain on translating commitments into concrete improvements in the lives of women and girls.

In this context, CSW70 stands as a reminder that multilateral processes are not only about outcomes, but also about the continued willingness of countries to come together, exchange perspectives, and move forward collectively (for real).

Fernanda Lagoeiro is a Brazilian journalist specializing in gender, climate and health issues. She has been covering issues relating to social impact, nonprofit sector, and environmental agendas, with a focus on underreported perspectives and human-centered storytelling. She has also contributed to national and international media outlets (such as Der Tagesspiegel, Deutsche Welle etc) and to institutional projects, focusing on accessible and impactful narratives.

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');  

Cracked earth, from lack of water and baked from the heat of the sun, forms a pattern in the Nature Reserve of Popenguine, Senegal. Credit: UN Photo/Evan Schneider

By Umar Manzoor Shah
GENEVA, Switzerland & SRINAGAR, India, Mar 23 2026 (IPS)

The global climate system continued its alarming trajectory in 2025, with multiple indicators reaching record or near-record extremes, underscoring the accelerating pace of climate change and its cascading impacts on ecosystems and human societies, according to the latest State of the Global Climate 2025 report released by the World Metereological Organisation (WMO).

The report presents a stark assessment. Greenhouse gas concentrations, global temperatures, ocean heat, and sea levels all continued to rise, while glaciers and sea ice declined at unprecedented rates. Scientists warn that these changes are not isolated. They are interconnected signals of a rapidly warming planet.

“The Earth’s energy imbalance has become increasingly positive,” the report notes, referring to the growing gap between incoming solar radiation and outgoing heat. “This leads to an accumulation of excess energy” within the climate system.

Ko Barrett, Deputy Secretary-General, World Meteorological Organization, during the report launch, told reporters  that  WMO has been issuing state of the global climate reports for more than 30 years to share the annual evidence basis for our key global indicators.

2025 was the third warmest year in recorded history. Credit: WMO

“Our report confirms that 2025 was among the hottest years ever recorded, about 1.43 degrees Celsius above the pre-industrial baseline, and part of an unprecedented streak where the past eleven years have all ranked as the warmest on record. What is particularly concerning is that this warming is not just reflected in temperatures but across the entire climate system. We are seeing glaciers continue to retreat, oceans warming at record levels, and sea levels rising as a result of both thermal expansion and melting ice. At the same time, extreme events such as heatwaves, heavy rainfall, and tropical cyclones are affecting virtually every continent, showing how societies are already experiencing the impacts of climate change in real time.”

She added that these findings identify why monitoring the climate system is so critical. “The data we collect is not abstract. It helps us improve forecasts, strengthen early warning systems, and ultimately protect lives and livelihoods. The science is clear and it is becoming more urgent. Our focus now is to ensure that this information reaches decision-makers and communities so that it can inform planning and response in a rapidly changing climate.”

Earth’s climate is out of balance. Credit: WMO

As per the report, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere reached 423.9 parts per million in 2024, the highest level in at least two million years. Methane and nitrous oxide also hit record levels, marking the highest concentrations in 800,000 years.

Scientists attribute this surge to continued fossil fuel use, increased wildfire emissions, and weakening natural carbon sinks. The report highlights that nearly half of all human-emitted carbon dioxide remains in the atmosphere, intensifying the greenhouse effect.

“The increase in the annual carbon dioxide concentration in 2024 was the largest since modern measurements began in 1957,” the report reads, adding that this persistent rise in greenhouse gases remains the primary driver of global warming, accounting for a significant share of radiative forcing since the industrial era.

 

The World Meteorological Society report shows the state of the Earth’s climate. Credit: WMO

Global temperatures in 2025 remained exceptionally high. The planet was about 1.43°C warmer than pre-industrial levels, making it the second or third warmest year on record.

The report notes that the past eleven years, from 2015 to 2025, have all ranked among the warmest years ever recorded.

Although 2025 was slightly cooler than the record-breaking 2024, largely due to a shift from El Niño to La Niña conditions, the overall warming trend remains clear.

“Despite La Niña conditions, around 90 percent of the ocean surface experienced at least one marine heatwave during 2025,” the report observes, adding that such widespread marine heatwaves disrupt ecosystems, damage fisheries, and intensify extreme weather events.

 

Carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide concentrations are at an all-time high. Credit: WMO

Karina von Schuckmann, lead author, said that one of the most important messages from this report is that the Earth is no longer in energy balance.

“We are now seeing more energy entering the climate system than leaving it, and this excess energy is accumulating at an accelerating rate. What is striking is where this heat is going. Around 91 percent of it is being absorbed by the oceans, with the rest distributed across land, ice, and the atmosphere. This makes the ocean central to understanding climate change, not just as a buffer, but as a key driver of long-term impacts.”

She added that the world is also observing that this heat is increasingly being transferred into deeper layers of the ocean. According to Schuckmann, the finding is significant because once heat moves below the surface, it becomes part of long-term climate change that can persist for hundreds to thousands of years.

“In that sense, what we are seeing today is not just a short-term fluctuation. It represents a long-term commitment of the climate system. At the same time, greenhouse gas concentrations continue to rise, and indicators like sea level are showing clear signs of acceleration, reinforcing the scale and persistence of the changes underway,” Schuckmann said.

“The rate of ocean warming over the past two decades is more than twice that observed between 1960 and 2005,” the report states.

It says that this rapid warming has far-reaching consequences. It fuels stronger storms, accelerates ice melt, and contributes to rising sea levels. It also threatens marine biodiversity and disrupts food chains.

The report has stated that global mean sea level remained near record highs in 2025, continuing a long-term upward trend. Since satellite measurements began in 1993, sea levels have risen by about 11 cm.

The rate of rise has also accelerated. Between 2012 and 2025, sea levels increased at nearly double the rate observed between 1993 and 2011. “Sea level has risen in all oceanic regions,” the report states, warning of increasing risks for coastal communities.

Rising seas threaten infrastructure, freshwater supplies, and livelihoods, particularly in low-lying regions and small island states.

The cryosphere, which includes glaciers and polar ice, continues to shrink at an alarming pace. The 2024–2025 hydrological year recorded one of the five most negative glacier mass balances since 1950. Notably, eight of the ten worst years for glacier loss have occurred since 2016.

Sea ice trends are equally concerning. Arctic sea ice extent in 2025 was among the lowest on record, while Antarctic sea ice reached its third lowest level since satellite monitoring began in 1979.

“The maximum daily extent of Arctic sea ice in 2025 was the lowest annual maximum in the observed record. “Shrinking ice reduces the Earth’s ability to reflect sunlight, further accelerating warming,” the report notes.

It has been claimed that the oceans, in addition to warming, are becoming more acidic due to the absorption of carbon dioxide. Surface ocean pH has declined steadily over the past four decades.

“Present-day surface pH values are unprecedented for at least 26,000 years,” the report states, citing high-confidence findings.

This chemical shift, as per the report, threatens coral reefs, shellfish, and marine ecosystems that support millions of livelihoods worldwide.

One of the most significant additions to this year’s report is the focus on Earth’s energy imbalance, a measure of how much excess heat the planet is retaining.

In 2025, this imbalance reached its highest level since records began in 1960. Scientists say this metric provides a comprehensive picture of global warming. “The total amount of heat stored on Earth is not just increasing but accelerating. This imbalance drives changes across the climate system, from rising temperatures to melting ice and shifting weather patterns,” the report warns.

The report has claimed that climate change is already affecting human lives and that extreme weather events, including floods, droughts, and heatwaves, are becoming more frequent and intense.

According to the report, these changes are associated with food insecurity, displacement, and economic losses, especially in vulnerable regions.

“Rapid large-scale changes in the Earth system have cascading impacts on human and natural systems. Health risks are also rising. Heatwaves, in particular, pose serious threats, especially in urban areas and regions with limited adaptive capacity,” the report states.

John Kennedy, Climate Scientist told reporters during the report launch that the past eleven years are the warmest on record, glaciers are losing mass at an accelerating rate, and sea ice is declining in both polar regions.  He said that, in fact, eight of the ten most negative glacier mass balance years have occurred since 2016, and the past four years have seen the lowest Antarctic sea ice minima on record.

“We are also seeing the impacts of this warming in the frequency and scale of extreme events. Heatwaves are becoming so widespread that it is increasingly difficult to document them individually. At the same time, ocean heat content continues to rise dramatically, with the energy being absorbed by the oceans equivalent to many times total human energy use each year. When we assess these changes against climate model projections, they remain within expected ranges, but the key question now is how these trends will evolve and whether the rate of warming could accelerate further in the coming years,” Kennedy 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');  

Excerpt:

Global temperature reaches 1.43°C above pre-industrial levels as CO₂ climbs to 423.9 ppm, oceans absorb 91 percent of excess heat and warm at over twice the historical rate, sea levels rise 11 cm since 1993 with accelerating trends, marine heatwaves impact 90 percent of the ocean surface, glaciers record 8 of 10 worst loss years since 2016, Arctic sea ice hits near-record lows, ocean acidity increases with 29 percent CO₂ uptake, and Earth’s energy imbalance grows at 0.3 W/m² per decade.

At a time when the traditional transatlantic relationship is more strained than ever—largely due to the almost compulsive stance of the current occupant of the White House and his circle—it is imperative for Europe to establish or strengthen strategic alliances in all domains, including in trade. Credit: EEAS

By Manuel Manonelles
BARCELONA, Spain, Mar 20 2026 (IPS)

“Europe can no longer be a custodian for the old-world order, for a world that has gone and will not return (…) we need a more realistic and interest-driven foreign policy.” These were some of the words pronounced one week ago by the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, at the EU Ambassadors’ Conference in Brussels. A speech that sparked considerable controversy: an almost immediate rebuttal from the President of the Council, Antonio Costa; rumours of a motion of censure against Von der Leyen in the European Parliament; more or less public reproaches from several European leaders; and a swift and complete retraction by the President herself.

The question, however, remains: was this a miscalculation by a President known for always trying to swim with the current? Or do her words reflect a deeper alignment with the mindset of a new (dis)order defined by Trumpian chaos and the authoritarian impulses emanating from Beijing and Moscow, among others?

Multilateralism is not only a matter of principles; it is also a matter of responsibility, and indeed of efficiency and effectiveness. Or does Europe truly believe it can tackle the major challenges it faces—from climate change and migration flows to global public health and the impact of AI—on its own?

In the former case, despite its seriousness, the mistake would still be forgivable. In the latter, we would be facing a far more significant—and particularly dangerous—problem.

In Brussels, some interpret it as a clearly failed attempt by Von der Leyen to steer the Union’s position towards the theses defended at that time by the German Chancellor Merz—her compatriot and party colleague—on the need to adopt policies more aligned with Trump.

Position that Merz himself has changed in the last few years, taking into account his particularly weak position, with approval ratings plummeting to just 26% less than a year after taking office—figures as low as Trump’s.

Returning to the President of the Commission, it was indeed troubling to observe that -in a Europe already deeply divided over the major geopolitical challenges of our time (the war in Iran and across the Middle East, the war in Ukraine, the situation in Venezuela)- it was precisely the individual recognised globally as the face of the European Union who delivered a speech so starkly at odds with the Union’s founding principles.

For the European project, with all its strengths—and its shortcomings—was built precisely on the ashes of the Second World War, on the traumatic experience of the totalitarian regimes of the 1920s and 1930s, and in opposition to the Stalinist totalitarianism that developed beyond the Iron Curtain.

It was founded on the principles of humanism, on respect for and the promotion of human rights, and on the idea of shared social rights and values. It was also grounded in the need for a rules-based international order which, despite its many imperfections, remains the only real mechanism capable of steering us away from the chaos and the law of the jungle to which some of the world’s major powers seek to drag us.

Are the United Nations in crisis? Undoubtedly, and no one seriously disputes it. Is multilateralism in retreat, and is respect for international law at a low point? Another undeniable tragedy. However, does this mean that the response to such a bleak context should be—as I have suggested—to adopt the very mindset of those responsible for this deterioration? Put differently: have we lost all sense of reason?

We are living in turbulent times. Europe must indeed strive for greater strategic autonomy—but this autonomy cannot be confined solely to defence. It must also—and urgently—extend to genuine autonomy in the realm of technological goods and services, where dependence on the United States places Europe in a position bordering on vassalage.

Moreover, at a time when the traditional transatlantic relationship is more strained than ever—largely due to the almost compulsive stance of the current occupant of the White House and his circle—it is imperative for Europe to establish or strengthen strategic alliances in all domains, including in trade. This is already happening with India, and should be finalised as soon as possible with Mercosur.

However, to suggest that Europe’s future—or, in other words, the future of the Europe that truly matters—could lie in a further weakening of the international order and the system of international organisations is, I say this unequivocally, simply irresponsible.

For multilateralism is not only a matter of principles; it is also a matter of responsibility, and indeed of efficiency and effectiveness. Or does Europe truly believe it can tackle the major challenges it faces—from climate change and migration flows to global public health and the impact of AI—on its own?

Europe needs multilateralism, among other reasons, to remain being Europe. And for that reason, it must commit to it now more than ever—without naïveté, with realism, but fully aware of the interdependence between the future of the European project and the existence of a minimum level of order and cooperation among nations, including the major powers.

This requires defending and promoting—against the alternative of chaos—the very spaces and institutions that make such cooperation possible, rather than ignoring or sidelining them.

Manuel Manonelles is Associate Professor of International Relations at Blanquerna-Ramon Llull University in Spain

A Sudanese family in rural Wasat AL Gadaref, Gedaref State, near Khartoum, Sudan. Credit: UNICEF/Osman Saif

By Oritro Karim
UNITED NATIONS, Mar 20 2026 (IPS)

The past two weeks have marked a significantly violent escalation in the Sudanese Civil War, with drone strikes and artillery shelling between the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) and the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) causing widespread destruction, casualties, and displacement. With humanitarian responses critically underfunded and the scale of needs, including the hunger crisis, continuing to grow, experts warn that millions in Sudan could be affected by famine, violence, or prolonged displacement.

Since March 4, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) has recorded more than 200 civilian deaths resulting from drone strikes in the Kordofan region and White Nile State. In West Kordofan, SAF drone strikes have killed at least 152 civilians, hitting densely populated areas including hospitals and markets. The conflict has also spread to White Nile State, where strikes have targeted the state capital, Kosti, as well as electrical facilities—causing widespread power outages—and a student dormitory.

“It is deeply troubling that despite multiple reminders, warnings, and appeals, parties to the conflict in Sudan continue to use increasingly powerful drones to deploy explosive weapons with wide-area impacts in populated areas,” said Volker Türk, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. “It will soon be three full years since the senseless conflict in Sudan began, devastating millions of lives and livelihoods. Yet the violence, fueled by these new technologies of war, simply keeps spreading. It is high time it came to an end.”

South Darfur has also been heavily affected, with drone strikes on March 12 and 13 causing extensive damage across multiple neighborhoods. In West Darfur, strikes on a market in Akidong triggered a massive explosion that impacted the Adre border crossing—a critical lifeline for humanitarian aid deliveries and a key route in preventing widespread starvation. On March 16, a deadly drone strike hit the Sudan-Chad border in Chad’s Tine region, killing 17 people and injuring several others. Local eyewitnesses told reporters that the strikes hit mourners at a funeral, as well as children playing nearby.

UN Deputy Spokesperson for the Secretary-General Farhan Haq said that the attack reflects a growing pattern of violence affecting border communities, raising concerns about broader regional instability between neighboring countries. “The UN calls once again on all parties to comply with their clearly known obligations under international humanitarian law, which include protecting civilians and civilian infrastructure, and ensuring the rapid, safe, unimpeded delivery of humanitarian assistance to whoever needs it, and wherever it is needed,” Haq said.

Following the attack, Chad bolstered its security forces along the Sudan-Chad border to prepare for defensive operations. On March 19, Chadian President Mahamat Idriss Deby confirmed in a statement shared to social media that Chad’s army has been ordered to “retaliate, starting from tonight, to any attack coming from Sudan.”

“Despite various firm warnings addressed to the different belligerents in the Sudan conflict and the closure of the border, the town of Tine has again been the target of a drone attack,” said a spokesperson for the Chadian government. “This latest assault of extreme gravity has caused the death of 17 of our compatriots and left several others injured.”

As violence continues to escalate and spill across borders, its humanitarian consequences within Sudan are becoming increasingly pronounced. Figures from the International Organization for Migration (IOM) show that approximately 9 million people are currently internally displaced across Sudan, marking one of the largest displacement crises in the world. On March 17, several people were killed in the Bara locality, northeast of El Obeid City, the capital of North Kordofan, causing over 150 displacements from Sherim Mima Village in Bara to Um Dam Haj alone.

Displacement has gone down in recent days, with roughly 3.8 million civilians recorded to have begun returning home, particularly to Khartoum and eastern regions. Despite this, returnees face a host of challenges, including the loss of their livelihoods, infrastructure damage, and a lack of access to basic services. Roughly 55 percent of internally displaced civilians were children under 18 years old.

Additional reports from humanitarian agencies paint a grim picture of the conditions that civilians face. Doctors Without Borders, also known as Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF), reports that civilians are at great risk of being harmed by explosive remnants on the ground, recording 23 injuries, including four women and seven children, sustaining severe injuries.

The United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) reports that rampant and concurrent outbreaks of cholera, measles, dengue, and Hepatitis E. have overwhelmed national health systems, which were already weakened by the vast influx of injured persons.

The World Food Programme (WFP) states that approximately 21.2 million people are currently food insecure across Sudan, with women and children disproportionately affected. The majority of female-headed households are critically food insecure. According to UNICEF, “catastrophic” malnutrition rates were recorded in Um Baru and Kornoi in North Darfur. Numerous regions are at risk of developing famine-like conditions and face severe shortages of food, clean water, healthcare, and other basic services.

Despite immense access challenges, the UN and its partners have been working on the frontlines to restore access to basic services, managing to install eight 2,000-liter water tanks in displacement shelters and schools. UNICEF has reached struggling communities with food assistance and vaccination programs, providing 787,000 children with nutrition screenings, 25,100 children with malnutrition treatment, and over 540,000 children with vaccines for Measles and Rubella.

However, these efforts remain severely constrained by chronic underfunding, with the 2026 Humanitarian Response Plan for Sudan being only 16 percent funded, reaching only $454 million of its $2.9 billion goal, which would assist over 20 million crisis-affected civilians across the country. An additional $1.6 billion is required to reach refugees and host communities in neighboring countries.

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');