Africa

Un billion de dollars équivaut à mille milliards de dollars. Si quelqu'un dépensait un million de dollars par jour, il lui faudrait plus de 2 700 ans pour dépenser un billion de dollars.

Niger, Mayahi, Village of Koren Habdjia. At the village health centre supported by UNICEF, mothers come for consultations with their children. This health centre provides care for childhood illnesses, maternal health, and pregnant women. It treats children for malnutrition and also provides delivery services. Credit: UNICEF/Islamane Abdou

By Oritro Karim
UNITED NATIONS, Jun 10 2026 (IPS)

Over the past few years, the humanitarian crisis in Africa’s Sahel region has expanded considerably, largely driven by a surge of violence—particularly in the Central Sahel. Although the crisis has been described by the United Nations (UN) as having “largely faded from the headlines” since its wake in 2012, millions of people across the region are in dire need of humanitarian assistance as civilian displacement, climate shocks, and widespread hunger rapidly spill across borders.

“The people of the Sahel are not on the sidelines of a global crisis; they are at the very heart of one of the world’s most severe and neglected emergencies,” said Charles Bernimolin, the regional head of the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) for West and Central Africa. “Every funding gap has a human cost. When we cut a program, a child loses a meal, women and girls’ protection, and a family loses hope. We cannot allow a financing collapse to become a death sentence for millions of people.”

On June 3, OCHA published the 2026 Humanitarian Needs and Response Overview (HNRO) for the Sahel, detailing a pronounced and escalating humanitarian crisis across Chad, Mali, Niger, Burkina Faso, Northeast Nigeria, and the Far North of Cameroon. OCHA estimates that approximately 24.3 million people across the region are in dire need of humanitarian assistance. According to the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), this includes 7.5 million children in central Sahel alone.

According to figures from the United Nations Regional Information Centre for Western Europe (UNRIC), the majority of terrorism-related murders in the world take place in the Sahel. Additionally, over the course of 2025, OCHA has recorded a sharp rise in civilian exploitation, significant disruptions to local economies, and the uprooting of entire communities across some areas.

The scale of needs is most pronounced in the central Sahel region, which hosts nearly three million internally displaced persons, roughly two million in Burkina Faso, 548,000 in Niger, and 415,000 in Mali. An additional one million refugees have been recorded across numerous neighbouring countries. According to figures from UNICEF, over 3.6 million people have been forcibly displaced as a direct result of violence this year.

In late April, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) recorded a series of large-scale attacks that targeted multiple municipalities across Mali—including the capital, Bamako—resulting in significant civilian casualties and exacerbated displacement. Subsequent attacks between the Mali police and armed groups were reported in the following days

OHCHR also reported numerous allegations of serious human rights violations following the attacks, such as extrajudicial killings and abductions. In May, Mountaga Tall, a Malian politician and lawyer, was abducted from his home, while his wife was assaulted. The whereabouts of Tall, his wife, and several other abduction victims remain unknown.

Additionally, the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) issued findings on May 6 that showed a significant rise in human rights violations against the Fulani ethnic group in Burkina Faso. The Fulani were found to be subjected to extrajudicial killings, abduction, torture, enforced disappearances, arbitrary detention, and property destruction by state and non-state actors.

OCHA reports that armed groups have begun expanding their influence across the central Sahel and Lake Chad Basin regions, stripping entire communities of protection services and any form of governance. Approximately 12,900 schools are estimated to have been closed as a result of escalating instability, leaving over 2.3 million children without education and leaving them increasingly vulnerable to recruitment and exploitation.

Children have been particularly hard-hit by this crisis, with UNICEF recording over 1,500 serious human rights violations against children. Schools continue to be targets for attacks, as a school in Mopti, Mali, was impacted by the presence of explosive devices and armed activity in May, affecting approximately 300 million. In the same period, UNICEF also recorded an attack on a community health facility in Gao, which disrupted access to medical care for roughly 2,700 children.

Recurring climate shocks across the region continue to exacerbate the crisis, with the Sahel warming considerably faster than the global average. Figures from OCHA show that roughly 590,000 people in the Sahel were impacted by violent floods in 2025 alone, with prolonged droughts and widespread desertification devastating local agriculture
and millions of livelihoods.

Prolonged climate shocks and protracted armed conflict have led to the Sahel region forming one of the world’s most severe hunger crises. OCHA projects that from June to August, approximately 15.4 million people could face crisis-level food insecurity or worse, including 1.5 million who could fall into emergency levels.

UNRIC reports that reduced food rations in Mali have resulted in a 64 percent increase in famine across numerous areas, leaving 1.5 million Malians severely food insecure. Additionally, rising fertiliser costs in the Sahel further exacerbate low agricultural yields, while rising fuel prices drive increasing food and aid costs.

Despite the vast and growing scale of needs, humanitarian funding for the Sahel has plummeted in recent years. Support from the international community for the region has reached its lowest level in a decade, with only 29 per cent of funding goals met in 2025, prompting aid organisations to scale back responses and prioritise the most vulnerable populations.

“Across the Sahel, humanitarian actors are implementing a Humanitarian Reset: refocusing on the most urgent needs, simplifying the response, and making sure limited resources have the greatest possible impact,” said Bernimolin.

“This means making difficult choices, improving efficiency, and bringing decision-making closer to affected communities. It also includes acting earlier through anticipatory action, expanding cash assistance, and strengthening support to national and local organizations, who play a key role in reaching people, especially in hard-to-reach areas,” he added.

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');  

  

 

UN Special Rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territories Francesca Albanese presents her latest report before delegates at the Human Rights Council in Geneva, Switzerland on 23 March 2026. Credit: Fabrice Coffrini/AFP

By Andrew Firmin
LONDON, Jun 10 2026 (IPS)

For a few days in May, Francesca Albanese could live more easily. On 13 May, a US federal judge ruled that sanctions the Trump administration imposed on her violated her right to free expression. The government was forced to remove the UN Special Rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territories from its sanctions list. But the reprieve lasted barely a week. On 27 May, after an appeals court suspended the ruling, the US Treasury restored sanctions.

The sanctions have been punishing. Due to the dominant role US institutions play in international financial transactions, Albanese can no longer use credit and debit cards. Her apartment in Washington DC has been seized, while Georgetown University ended her affiliation as a scholar. Her offence is to call out Israel’s genocide in Gaza and the occupation policies that preceded it.

An Italian citizen with a legal background, Albanese was appointed in 2022 and began her final term in 2025. She’s consistently been critical of Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories. In 2024, she presented her Anatomy of a Genocide report to the Human Rights Council. The report found reasonable grounds to conclude that Israel was committing genocidal acts in Gaza, and called for an arms embargo. Her 2025 report, From Economy of Occupation to Economy of Genocide, set out the complicity of major companies in Israel’s human rights atrocities.

Albanese’s demands for justice have brought a fierce backlash from Israel and its allies. Israel called for her to be removed from her post and banned her from visiting Israel and Palestine. The Trump administration followed suit in calling for her sacking. When it imposed sanctions on Albanese last July, it was the first time these had been applied against a UN independent human rights expert.

Sanctions politicised

Albanese isn’t the only target. Democratic states have long applied sanctions against dictators, terrorists and human rights abusers, but the Trump administration is increasingly using them as a weapon against people who defend human rights.

This month, Israel received widespread international condemnation for its actions against the Global Sumud Flotilla, a civil society-led initiative to defy Israel’s chokehold on aid for Gaza and bring vital humanitarian supplies by sea. Israel intercepted the boats in international waters, abducted those on board and subjected them to sickening abuse. When Israel’s far-right national security minister Itamar Ben-Gvir posted a video of himself taunting the abducted activists, democratic states including Canada, Italy and the UK deplored his behaviour, and France and Poland banned him from their countries.

But the US government has done the opposite, imposing sanctions on four activists involved in organising the flotilla. The politicisation of sanctions is evident, given that one of Donald Trump’s first acts on returning to the presidency was to lift sanctions on violent Israeli West Bank settlers.

The International Criminal Court (ICC) is also a target. Last year the Trump administration sanctioned nine ICC officials. The measures came after the ICC issued arrest warrants on crimes against humanity and war crimes charges against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and ex-Defence Minister Yoav Gallant, and in retaliation for the court’s investigation into potential US war crimes in Afghanistan.

Trump sanctioned two ICC officials in his first term and has repeatedly attacked the ICC, with reports last year that his administration was threatening further sanctions to try to force revisions of the court’s founding treaty, the Rome Statute, to explicitly prevent it having jurisdiction over non-member states such as the USA. Early in his second presidency, he issued an executive order threatening sanctions against anyone who participates in the ICC’s investigations. This sweeping order enabled the sanctions against Albanese.

Trump has also weaponised sanctions to block climate action. Last year the International Maritime Organization was about to finalise a deal to limit the shipping industry’s greenhouse gas emissions. At the last minute, adoption of the new rules was postponed when Trump threatened sanctions against states that supported the emissions curbs.

Chilling effect

Beyond their immediate effects, sanctions help repressive states smear human rights advocates as criminals and terrorists. For Albanese, sanctions form part of a broader campaign to restrict her right to speak out. She has received death threats, which have also been levelled against her daughter.

A broader chilling effect on civil society is visible. Concern about being penalised for sanctions violations caused two US-based human rights groups to pull out of the ICC’s annual meeting last year. For the Trump administration, sanctions are part of a wider onslaught on the rights of people and institutions to demand justice for Israel’s many human rights violations. They’ve come alongside violence against US protests in solidarity with Palestine, deportations of activists and threats to throw young people out of university and defund education institutions.

The misuse of sanctions also forms part of a broader assault on the institutions and rules of global governance. At the same time that the Trump administration is twisting international norms about how sanctions are used and who they’re applied to, it’s also choosing which organisations to participate in and which rules to follow depending on what it sees as the US national interest, and lashing out at international bodies and processes that bring human rights scrutiny.

A single ruling, now suspended, was never going to be enough against the Trump administration’s increasing use of sanctions as a tool to try to silence people. The democratic states that condemned Israel’s abuses against the flotilla activists must show the same resolve when the world’s most powerful state turns sanctions against people whose only offence is to insist that human rights apply everywhere, including in Gaza.

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');  

  

 

GA During NPT Review Conference. Credit: Jonathan Granoff

By Jonathan Granoff
NEW YORK, Jun 10 2026 (IPS)

Martin Luther King Jr. , when he received the Nobel Peace Prize, reminded us of “The fact that most of the time human beings put the truth about the nature and risks of the nuclear war out of their minds because it is too painful and therefore not ‘acceptable’, does not alter the nature and risks of such war. The device of ‘rejection’ may temporarily cover up anxiety, but it does not bestow peace of mind and emotional security.” I have devoted many decades of my life to not ignoring the risk of nuclear annihilation and since 1995 have attended every Review Conference of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty to learn and hopefully contributed to a saner safer world.

The 191 nations which are parties to the third most important legal instrument of the 20th Century, the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), recently finished a Review Conference at the United Nations in which the future of humanity was soberly discussed. It took place from April 27-May 22, 2026. Social media, major news outlets, and other media virtually ignored the gravity and importance of the deliberations. Only the UN Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are arguably of greater significance than the NPT.

Without it there would likely be dozens of states with nuclear arsenals. Because of it there are only nine. Five – US, UK, France, China, and Russia — are members of the Treaty and India, Israel, Pakistan, and North Korea are the only nations in the world not parties to the Treaty.

The NPT arose because intelligence estimates during the 1960s reported that, by the end of the 1970s, there would be twenty-five to thirty states with nuclear weapons integrated into their national arsenals and ready for use. The Treaty entered into force in 1970. It is based on a bargain. In exchange for a commitment from the non-nuclear weapon states (today, some 186 nations) not to develop or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons and to submit to international safeguards intended to verify compliance with the commitment, the five NPT nuclear weapon states promised unfettered access to peaceful nuclear technologies (e.g. nuclear power reactors and nuclear medicine), and pledged to engage in good faith disarmament negotiations to achieve the elimination of their nuclear arsenals.

This promise of disarmament is the only expression by the five that they are legally bound to negotiate nuclear disarmament. It is reinforced by the historic 1996 Advisory Opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) which unanimously ruled that an obligation exists to pursue in good faith and conclude negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict, effective international control. This finding interpreted Article VI of the NPT as a binding requirement not to just negotiate in good faith but asserted an affirmative obligation to pursue and conclude negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament.

The Treaty had a provision that after 25 years it would be reviewed to be determined whether it would terminate, be extended for another specific period of time, or be extended indefinitely. It was agreed in 1995 that it would be extended indefinitely. However, there is an ongoing legal obligation that every five years there is a review conference to analyze compliance and establish commitments to action to fulfill the core bargain. This process should not be ignored.

A context of previous commitments that have been made and remain outstanding are worth noting. Yes, diplomatic and especially legal language is boring but remember these words are the best tools we have for preventing suffering at scales and horror beyond our capacity to imagine.

The choice is either the tools of law and diplomacy or facing the consequence of explosions giving off heat three times the face of the sun, fireballs tens of miles wide throwing tons of soot into the stratosphere rending the agricultural base of civilization destroyed, radiation spreading across the globe, and the callous use of devices which dwarf the destruction of Hiroshima or Nagasaki by magnitudes the mind cannot easily grasp.

The atomic bombs of World War II were each less than the equivalent of 20 tons of TNT. There are now bombs in the million tons ranges. If used they will not discriminate between children, elderly, or even other species. As the first generation that must decide not to be the last, we will have failed our duty to future generations and our duty to live as human beings during our brief journey together.

So, please look at the progress that has taken place and could take place again if we can generate the knowledge in the public and political will of leaders to simply save humanity from a fire of our own creation.

A bargain to gain the indefinite extension of the NPT was obtained in 1995. It was based on a Statement of Principles and Objectives for Nuclear Nonproliferation and Disarmament which “politically, if not legally, condition[ed] the indefinite extension of the treaty.” The Statement pledged to accomplish the following:

1. Complete a “Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) by the end of 1996”
2. Reaffirm the commitment “to pursue . . . nuclear disarmament”
3. Commence “negotiations for a treaty to stop” production “of nuclear bomb material[s]”
4. “[S]harply reduce global nuclear arsenals”
5. Encourage “the creation of nuclear-weapon-free zones”
6. Vigorously work to make the treaty universal by bringing in Israel, Pakistan and India, who have nuclear weapons and remain outside the treaty
7. Enhance IAEA [ Atomic Energy Agency] safeguards and verification capacity 8. Reinforce negative security assurances already given to NNWS (Non-Nuclear Weapons States) “against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons against them . . . .” (This means to not threaten to use nuclear weapons against states which have renounced nuclear weapons for themselves .)

At the first Review Conference of the Treaty in 2000 the here are some of the terms upon which unanimous agreement was obtained:

1. Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty

The importance and urgency of signature and ratification, without delay and without conditions and in accordance with constitutional processes, to achieve the early entry into force of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.

2. Nuclear Test Moratorium

A moratorium on nuclear weapon test explosions or any other nuclear explosions pending entry into force of that Treaty.

3. Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty

The necessity of negotiations in the Conference on Disarmament on a non-discriminatory, multilateral and internationally and effectively verifiable treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.

6. Elimination of Nuclear Arsenals

An unequivocal undertaking by the nuclear-weapon States to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals leading to nuclear disarmament to which all States parties are committed under Article VI.

7. The START II, START III, and ABM Treaties

The early entry into force and full implementation of START II and the conclusion of START III as soon as possible while preserving and strengthening the ABM Treaty as a cornerstone of strategic stability and as a basis for further reductions of strategic offensive weapons, in accordance with its provisions. (These treaties have been ended.)

9. Other Nuclear-Weapon States’ Actions

Steps by all the nuclear-weapon States leading to nuclear disarmament in a way that promotes international stability, and based on the principle of undiminished security for all:

– Further efforts by the nuclear-weapon States to reduce their nuclear arsenals unilaterally

– Increased transparency by the nuclear-weapon States with regard to the nuclear weapons capabilities and the implementation of agreements pursuant to Article VI and as a voluntary confidence-building measure to support further progress on nuclear disarmament

– The further reduction of non-strategic nuclear weapons, based on unilateral initiatives and as an integral part of the nuclear arms reduction and disarmament process

– Concrete agreed measures to further reduce the operational status of nuclear weapons systems

– A diminishing role for nuclear weapons in security policies to minimize the risk that these weapons ever be used and to facilitate the process of their total elimination

– The engagement as soon as appropriate of all the nuclear-weapon States in the process leading to the total elimination of their nuclear weapons

10. Excess Fissile Material

Arrangements by all nuclear-weapon States to place, as soon as practicable, fissile material designated by each of them as no longer required for military purposes under IAEA or other relevant international verification and arrangements for the disposition of such material for peaceful purposes, to ensure that such material remains permanently outside of military programmes.

13. Verification

The further development of the verification capabilities that will be required to provide assurance of compliance with nuclear disarmament agreements for the achievement and maintenance of a nuclear-weapon-free world.

In 2010 over 60 further commitments to making the world safer were made.

I recount the accomplishment of these commitments to highlight the diplomatic failure of the 2026 Conference where no final statement of agreement could be reached. We must be sober and recognize that the five states with nuclear weapons are either modernizing and thus making more usable their nuclear arsenals and/or expanding them, and the web of agreements that have constrained and contained proliferation and reduced risk have been eliminated by the actions of Russia and the US which possess over 85% of the world’s over 12,000 nuclear weapons. Threats of use are daily reported in the papers.

Treaty words and promises must mean something or else bullets become the verbs of communication. In the nuclear age this is too dangerous.

If the people of the world knew what diplomats could achieve if they were given the authority to use the skills of law and diplomacy, if they knew the daily risk of use of these devices by accident, design, or madness and the dozens of near uses by mistake, if they knew there is a better way, we could follow the path President Reagan and President Gorbachev opened which led to the reduction of the world’s nuclear arsenals by over 80%.

Today fear is an abused currency. In recent times we have seen how much can be created when hope and trust are invoked. The current downward spiral arising from the abusive arrogance of power exemplified by nuclear threats cannot lead to a better place. Our common humanity alone can bring us common security. It has been done before and it can be done again.

The 2026 NPT Review Conference demonstrated a failure by the five nuclear weapons states to work together to make the world a safer place.

Let us take the advice of Martin Luther King Jr. whose words when he won the Noble Peace Prize remain resonant today. “I refuse to accept the cynical notion that nation after nation must spiral down a militaristic stairway into the hell of thermonuclear destruction. I believe that unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word in reality. This is why right temporarily defeated is stronger than evil triumphant.‬”

That is why in the face of apathy, ignorance, fear, war, dishonesty, and violence, those of us who know the life lived without caring, compassion, sincerity and the pursuit of truth is hollow cannot turn away from the imperative that is both moral and practical. The work to fulfill the legal duty to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons and obtain their legal, verifiable elimination must continue. Working for peace is not an inconvenient truth but a blessing available to all of us.

Jonathan Granoff is President of the Global Security Institute.

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');  

  

 

Découvrir du sang dans ses selles ou sur le papier toilette génère une inquiétude immédiate. Le saignement rectal — rectorragie en médecine — constitue l’un […]

L’article Saignement rectal : quelles en sont les causes réelles selon la science ? est apparu en premier sur .

L’Algérie et la Norvège passent à la vitesse supérieure dans leur coopération énergétique, en y intégrant un volet environnemental crucial. Le ministre d’État, ministre des […]

L’article Hydrocarbures : l’Algérie et la Norvège renforcent leur partenariat avec un nouvel objectif est apparu en premier sur .

Le procureur de la République près le pôle pénal spécialisé dans les affaires de corruption financière et économique de Sidi M’hamed a requis une peine […]

L’article 10 ans de prison et confiscation des biens requises contre l’ex-ministre Temmar est apparu en premier sur .

C’est une consécration scientifique majeure pour l’Algérie. Rabeh Abderrahmane Mouissat, brillant diplômé en automatique de l’université « Kasdi Merbah » de Ouargla, a réussi à […]

L’article Un Algérien développe un modèle d’IA en arabe et décroche une reconnaissance internationale est apparu en premier sur .

À l’occasion de sa participation au SIEE-Pollutec 2026, Equatorial Coca-Cola Bottling Company réaffirme son engagement en faveur d’un modèle de croissance durable fondé sur l’innovation […]

L’article Pollutec 2026: Equatorial Coca-Cola Bottling Company Algérie met l’innovation durable locale à l’honneur est apparu en premier sur .

The financing required to build resilient water and sanitation systems continues to leave governments overburdened with debt repayments, excessive borrowing costs, and illicit financial flows. Credit: Jeffrey Moyo/IPS

By Mavis Owusu-Gyamfi and Francisca Tatchouop Belobe
Jun 9 2026 (IPS)

Somewhere in Africa today, a woman will spend more than 30 minutes collecting water that may make her and her children sick. At the same time, her government will face severe fiscal constraints that will limit its ability to provide clean water, among other basic services.

This injustice sits at the heart of Africa’s development challenge. And, with a strong “El Niño” climate cycle currently developing and threatening to disrupt fragile water supplies, the situation can only get worse.

In several countries, debt servicing now consumes between 50 and 70 percent of government revenue, leaving little room for investment in critical sectors like water and sanitation

Africa loses billions of dollars every year through unfair sovereign credit ratings, illicit financial flows, and mounting debt repayments – all symptoms of a global financial system that wasn’t designed with African development in mind. Reforming that system could unlock critical resources for investment in water, sanitation, and the foundations of economic transformation.

Some 418 million Africans still lack basic drinking water services, while 779 million lack basic sanitation. Sub-Saharan Africa remains the only region in the world where the number without access to basic drinking water continues to rise, even as climate change intensifies droughts, floods, and water stress.

No country can industrialize without reliable water systems. No health system can function without sanitation. Agricultural transformation cannot succeed amid worsening climate shocks. And the demographic dividend cannot be realized if women and girls continue to spend hours searching for water instead of pursuing education and economic opportunity.

Yet the financing required to build resilient water and sanitation systems continues to leave governments overburdened with debt repayments, excessive borrowing costs, and illicit financial flows.

Three Essential Challenges

African governments routinely pay borrowing costs that far exceed their actual risk profile. Despite evidence showing Africa’s infrastructure default rates are lower than those in other developing regions, perceptions of risk remain disproportionately high – and those skewed risk perceptions are embedded in sovereign credit ratings. The result is an “Africa premium” that shrinks the fiscal space available for public investment.

Estimates suggest African countries could save up to $74.5 billion if ratings were based on less subjective assessments. Simulations using the Universities of St Andrews and Leicester GRADE model show the human impact of these distortions. In Ghana alone, correcting for bias embedded in sovereign ratings could create enough fiscal space to extend basic water access to more than 417,000 people and sanitation facilities for 381,537 people.

Africa loses vast resources through illicit financial flows, which take three main forms: trade mis-invoicing (falsifying invoices to misrepresent price, quantity, or quality of goods to evade taxes and duties); profit shifting (multinationals exploiting tax loopholes to move reported profits from high-tax countries to low-tax havens); and opaque cross-border transactions (international financial movements hidden by complex customs requirements, poor data transparency, or illicit practices).

UNCTAD estimates that the continent loses $88.6 billion annually to illicit financial flows — resources that could transform access to water and sanitation. In Nigeria alone, curbing trade mis-invoicing could extend water access to 2.56 million people and sanitation services to more than 4 million.

Addressing this challenge requires action globally and domestically. Beneficial ownership transparency, automatic exchange of financial information, and fairer international tax rules must be matched by stronger domestic revenue systems and governance reforms across Africa.

The third challenge is debt.

In 2024, Africa’s external debt service reached $84.4 billion – nearly five times the level recorded in 2010. In several countries, debt servicing now consumes between 50 and 70 percent of government revenue, leaving little room for investment in critical sectors like water and sanitation.

Meanwhile, debt restructuring processes remain too slow and too heavily weighted against debtor countries. The developmental consequences of the current debt burden are already measurable: simulations show that under a scenario in which debt service is capped at just 5 percent of government revenue, Egypt could achieve near-universal access to clean water and sanitation. In Ghana, a more flexible Eurobond restructuring could have resulted in more than a million people gaining access to water and sanitation.

African governments recognize the urgent need for fiscal space to invest in long-term priorities, especially water and sanitation systems that are essential for public health, climate resilience, food security, and economic productivity, hence their adoption,  of the Common African Position (CAP) on Debt — a continental strategy for sovereign debt management and reform so that debt becomes a tool for structural transformation rather than placing economies in a chokehold.

So, when our governments advocate for more concessional financing or lower borrowing costs, they’re talking about the lives of real people, often the most vulnerable: women and children.

The international community must take three steps to accompany Africa on its journey to an economic transformation that truly benefits its people.

First, sovereign credit rating methodologies for African economies must be independently reviewed to correct structural distortions that continue to overprice African risk.

Second, the international community must curb illicit financial flows through stronger transparency standards, fairer global tax rules, and meaningful enforcement mechanisms.

Third, the international debt architecture must be redesigned to support development rather than undermine it.

Sixty-three years ago, African leaders gathered in Addis Ababa to declare that Africa would shape its own destiny.

The continent possesses the resources, institutions, and ambition to drive its transformation. What remains is the political will — globally and domestically — to build a financial system that enables, rather than constrains, Africa’s development.

Mavis Owusu-Gyamfi is President and CEO of the African Center for Economic Transformation (ACET). Francisca Tatchouop Belobe is the Commissioner for Economic Development, Trade, Tourism, Industry and Minerals (ETTIM) Department at the African Union Commission

À quoi ressemble une journée à 48 °C ? Pour ceux pour qui la chaleur extrême est une réalité quotidienne, bien des choses ont changé.

Omar Artan was set to become the first Somali to referee a game at the World Cup finals, but his place in history has been denied by US immigration authorities.

Protesters are concerned about cross-border infection risks and the lack of transparency from the government about the treatment centre.

Scholarships help three women who grew up in poverty complete master's qualifications in the UK.

L'utilisation de substances exotiques suscite de plus en plus d'intérêt, mais des études montrent que l'efficacité de toutes ces pratiques n'est pas prouvée.

(AI image for representative purpose)

By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Jun 9 2026 (IPS)

As ongoing military conflicts in Europe and the Middle East continue with no signsof winding down, there is increasing focus on nuclear weaponsamid heightened risks of escalation.

The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI),in its annual assessment of the state of armaments, disarmament and international security, singles out key findings in its SIPRI Yearbook 2026 that “states are increasingly relying on nuclear weapons as instruments of national power—reversing decades of efforts to reduce the numbers and role of nuclear weapons—even as the risks of miscalculation and escalation are rising”.

World’s nuclear arsenals expanded and upgraded

The world’s nine nuclear-armed states—the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, France, China, India, Pakistan, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea) and Israel—continued programmes to modernize and enhance their nuclear arsenals in 2025, and most deployed new nuclear-armed or nuclear-capable weapon systems during the year, said SIPRI.

The current military conflicts include a nuclear Russia vs non-nuclear Ukraine, a nuclear US vs non-nuclear Iran and a nuclear Israel vs non-nuclear Palestine and Lebanon.

Of the total global inventory of an estimated 12, 187 warheads in January 2026, about 9,745 were in military stockpiles for potential use.

An estimated 4,012 of those warheads were deployed with missiles and aircraft and the rest were in central storage. Between 2100 and 2200 of the deployed warheads were kept in a state of high operational alert on ballistic missiles, according to the report.

Nearly all of these warheads belonged to Russia or the USA, and to a lesser extent France and the UK, but China and India may now occasionally deploy a small number of warheads mounted on missiles during peacetime.

‘Influential voices, including some world leaders, are advocating nuclear weapons as a guarantee against attack by a hostile state. But making national defence and security strategies dependent—or more dependent—on nuclear weapons could significantly increase nuclear risks,’ said SIPRI Director Karim Haggag.

‘The dangers associated with nuclear weapons are growing due to advances in weapon technology, the breakdown of nuclear arms control and heightened geopolitical tensions, among a range of other factors. At the same time, world events—not least the outbreak of conflict between nuclear-armed India and Pakistan—are challenging nuclear deterrence logic.’

Dr M. V. Ramana, Professor and Simons Chair in Disarmament, Global and Human Security, Director pro tem, School of Public Policy and Global Affairs at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, told Inter Press Service the continued modernization of nuclear weapons and the increased emphasis on nuclear weapons in military doctrines is a dangerous trend, especially when this is happening when many of the most military powerful countries in the world are resorting to attacking other countries with bombs, missiles, and drones rather than diplomatically settling differences.

“Any of these ongoing wars can easily escalate into ones where some country resorts to using nuclear weapons, which would result in destruction an order of magnitude greater than what is already being wrought by the weapons being used currently,” he pointed out.

Such a contingency becomes even more imaginable with the integration of Artificial Intelligence and other software tools to accelerate the kill chain, and possibly removing people from the process of deciding who to attack and what weapons to use, h argued.

Countries without nuclear weapons currently are also witnessing recommendations from influential spokespeople to consider developing a nuclear arsenal. Such a race can quickly spiral out of control, making it urgent that the world collectively step away from expanding nuclear arsenals and considering their use, and more generally, cease the use of militaristic violence to settle differences, said Dr Ramana.

Since the end of the cold war, says SIPRI, the gradual dismantlement of retired warheads by Russia and the USA has normally outstripped the deployment of new warheads, resulting in an overall year-on-year decrease in the global inventory of nuclear weapons. This trend is likely to be reversed in the coming years, as the pace of dismantlement is slowing, while the deployment of new nuclear weapons is accelerating.

‘The evidence is growing that the nuclear weapon states are sidelining, and even walking away from, their disarmament commitments and are instead flexing their nuclear muscles,’ said Hans M. Kristensen, Associate Senior Fellow with SIPRI’s Weapons of Mass Destruction Programme and Director of the Nuclear Information Project at the Federation of American Scientists (FAS).

‘By reaching for nuclear solutions, states are creating new risks and fuelling arms-race dynamics,’ he said.

Dr. Natalie Goldring, the Acronym Institute’s representative at the United Nations, told IPS the nine countries with nuclear weapons are engaged in extremely destabilizing behaviors — developing new weapons, increasing the size of their nuclear arsenals, abandoning arms control frameworks and verification systems, and threatening to use nuclear weapons in response to conventional weapons attacks, among other dangerous moves. Each of these choices increases risk; taken together, the potential consequences are terrifying.

Even the existence of nuclear weapons poses enormous military, economic, and environmental threats, among others. Fortunately, there’s a promising way forward — the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), which rejects the contention that nuclear deterrence and continued development of new nuclear weapons somehow make us safer.

Under the TPNW, States commit themselves to not develop, test, produce, acquire, possess, stockpile, use, or threaten to use nuclear weapons. The TPNW has 74 States Parties, with an additional 25 signatories that have not yet become States Parties. It’s arguably our best hope of breaking the cycle of continual upgrades and “modernization” of weapons, while decreasing nuclear threats.

“We don’t know whether the fact that nuclear weapons haven’t been used in wartime since the United States military dropped nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki is because of luck, skill (including deterrence), or a combination of those factors. Proponents of deterrence don’t tend to talk about the role of luck. They also don’t tend to talk about the risk of nuclear use through accident or miscalculation. That’s a short-sighted, high-risk approach. Militaries frequently have accidents; they also frequently fail to correctly calculate their adversaries’ capabilities and motivations.”

“The inherent risks of these weapons are compounded by the individuals involved. For example, US President Donald Trump is a threat to international security. He is unpredictable, prone to fits of rage, disinclined to listen to or learn from experts, and poorly informed about specific and general US military policies. And because of US nuclear weapons policy, he has the authority to order the launch of nuclear weapons without anyone else needing to confirm that order. That’s an extraordinarily dangerous situation, especially given his volatility.”

Recent events also increase risk. For example, the New START Treaty limited the number of deployed nuclear weapons for both the United States and Russia and contained useful verification provisions. Unfortunately, the treaty expired in February 2026, removing both the numerical limits on US and Russian nuclear stockpiles and the verification procedures.

Another example is the recent conclusion of the 2026 Review Conference on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. This conference continued the pattern from the previous two review conferences, as States were not even able to agree on an outcome document. More importantly, the five nuclear weapons states defined by the treaty (the US, Russia, the United Kingdom, China, and France) continue to fail to meet their commitment to disarmament under Article VI of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

“The US’s stated reliance on the idea of nuclear deterrence may have encouraged other countries to do the same. I remember being at a meeting many years ago, where a South Asian diplomat asked me why the US government was so arrogant that it thought it had a monopoly on nuclear deterrence. He said there was no reason that India and Pakistan couldn’t or shouldn’t have a similar set of strategies. TPNW provides a more sensible answer – all of these States should renounce nuclear weapons.”

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');  

  

 

South African President Cyril Ramaphosa and Health Minister Aaron Motsoaledi at the official launch of the new injectable drug for HIV prevention, Lenacapavir. Credit: GCIS

By Ed Holt
BRATISLAVA, Jun 9 2026 (IPS)

As South Africa officially launches the rollout of a groundbreaking HIV prevention drug,  civic groups in the country have slammed the plan, saying it will not reach anywhere near enough people.

President Cyril Ramaphosa on June 5 launched the roll-out in South Africa of lenacapavir, a twice-yearly injectable HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) drug that has been shown to offer almost complete protection against the disease, billing it as a ‘historic event’.

But activists say there is nothing to celebrate, warning the targets set in the rollout are too low, and the volumes of the drug provided by the pharma firm behind its development, Gilead, are tiny.

“In an ideal world, South Africa would not be rolling out lenacapavir as a small pilot. We would be treating it as an epidemic-ending intervention. The objective should be to get millions of people onto lenacapavir as quickly as possible, not a few hundred thousand over several years,” Tian Johnson, founder and strategist of the Pan-African health justice advocacy group, African Alliance, told IPS.

“South Africa has the world’s largest HIV epidemic. We also helped generate the scientific evidence that made lenacapavir possible. An appropriate response would therefore be a national scale-up plan linked to epidemiological need, not constrained by artificial scarcity created by patent monopolies, donor allocations, and supply decisions made outside the country,” he added.

South Africa has the world’s highest burden of HIV, with around 8 million people living with HIV. In 2024 it recorded 170,000 new infections, accounting for roughly 13% of the 1.3 million new cases globally that year.

Lenacapavir has been shown in trials to provide almost complete protection against HIV acquisition. It has been praised not just for its effectiveness but also for its potential for very high adherence, as it is an injection given only every six months.

Civic groups say that if rolled out in a timely manner and with greater volumes, it could avert up to 52,200 new infections per year in South Africa alone.

They also point to modelling which has shown that around 2 million people in South Africa need to be taking lenacapavir annually for it to have a real impact on the number of new HIV infections.

But the government’s rollout is expected to reach only around 450,000 people over the next two years. Moreover, only just under 38,000 doses have so far arrived in the country.

Activists blame adversarial US policy and effective monopolies on the drug’s supply for this and say it has highlighted concerns over who has real control over efforts to end the epidemic in the country.

The Global Fund to Fight Aids, TB and Malaria (GF) and the United States President’s Emergency Plan for Aids Relief (PEPFAR) have historically been central to funding South Africa’s HIV response.

But days after Donald Trump entered the White House early last year, PEPFAR slashed around half of its funding for HIV in South Africa – what is left of it is due to run out this month.

So far, the Trump administration is refusing to fund lenacapavir for South Africa as the two countries lock horns politically and ideologically.

This means that the doses to be used in South Africa over the next 18 months to two years will be funded by the Global Fund and are expected to be only sufficient for 456,000 people.

Meanwhile, since Gilead is currently the only manufacturer of lenacapavir and generics are not available on the market yet, there is no alternative path available to secure more doses for the rollout.

Currently the cost of Lenacapavir is about USD 28,000 per person a year in the U.S., but Gilead has issued six licences to companies to manufacture generics, which will be available to 120 low- and middle-income countries. These are expected to become available in 2027, potentially for as little as USD 40 per person per year.

Earlier this year, it was announced the South African government was working to identify a local company to manufacture lenacapavir. Once identified, that company would then be recommended to Gilead for a voluntary licence to produce the drug.

In 2024, Gilead granted such licences to six generic manufacturers across India, Egypt and Pakistan to produce and supply the drug ⁠to 120 low- and middle-income countries. At the time, critics pointed out that no South African ​drugmakers were included.

Gilead has said it is open to adding another licence for local manufacturing in Sub-Saharan Africa. But activists warn that any final decision on a licence will rest with the company.

The groups also highlighted previous delays in the rollout of the programme, which had initially been scheduled to begin in April. When the first doses arrived in South Africa in March and April, they were subject to obligatory regulatory tests. Gilead could have asked for an exemption to the tests but did not, activists claim.

They say all this means properly protecting people against HIV in South Africa is effectively dependent on a pharmaceutical firm and US political policy.

“Gilead currently exercises extraordinary influence over who receives lenacapavir, in what quantities, and on what timeline. When a country with the world’s largest HIV epidemic cannot independently determine access to a medicine that was partly researched within its own borders, something is fundamentally wrong with the balance of power. The uncomfortable reality is that key decisions affecting South Africa’s HIV response are still being made in corporate boardrooms and donor negotiations rather than in South Africa. That should concern everyone, regardless of where they stand on this rollout,” said Johnson.

“Many countries are receiving doses funded by the US, and then also being funded as a result of re-allocation of already committed Global Fund funding repurposed for lenacapavir. The US is refusing to fund South Africa ‘s lenacapavir program, even though there is no better example of a country that needs lenacapavir, and [the programme] would immediately show impact,” Asia Russell, Executive Director of HIV advocacy group Health Gap, told IPS.

“The US government has stated its goal is to bend the curve of new HIV infections, but it is blocking access to the doses urgently needed in South Africa, which means it will fail to reach its goal. It should immediately reverse this decision, stop bullying  South Africa, and provide doses – South Africa’s minuscule allocation of lenacapavir only from the Global Fund means the pandemic will continue raging in South Africa,” she added.

It will also have a detrimental effect on wider efforts to tackle HIV outside South Africa, others say.

“South Africa accounts for more than 13 percent of new HIV infections globally each year, and is a home for millions of other public health care recipients from other countries who benefit from the South African health care system. The US government’s refusal to support South Africa with lenacapavir and cut off other funding is not only cruel but also contributes to delays in ending the HIV pandemic,” Bellinda Thibela, Coordinator for Health Justice and Human Rights at Health GAP, told IPS

Meanwhile, activists point out what they see as another huge injustice in the situation.

South Africa was key to the development of the drug – it hosted testing sites, its clinics were used in research, and subjects came from its communities – yet it is now struggling to secure sufficient supplies of that same drug.

“South Africa played a pivotal role in the clinical development of lenacapavir, hosting 25 of the 28 trial sites that participated in the PURPOSE 1 Phase III study of this groundbreaking long-acting HIV prevention tool. Yet, despite this substantial contribution, my country has found itself in the difficult position that, following approval by the US FDA and rollout in several high-income countries, access to lenacapavir at scale for PrEP remains abysmally low and challenging. And not just for South Africa,” Fatima Hassan of the Health Justice Initiative (HJI), told IPS.

“This underscores persistent inequities within the global innovation ecosystem, where countries that bear a disproportionate burden of disease and contribute significantly to research and development often face delays in accessing the very health technologies they helped bring to fruition. It also raises important questions about local manufacturing, technology transfer, regulatory capacity, affordability, and equitable access in markets that are frequently perceived as less commercially attractive, despite their central role in generating the evidence that drives global health innovation and the development of new health technologies,” she added.

In a statement, Gilead said the launch of the rollout was an important step toward expanding access to lenacapavir for communities most affected by HIV.

“South Africa is at the heart of global efforts to end HIV. With the country’s launch of lenacapavir, there is now an opportunity to rapidly accelerate progress,” said Daniel O’Day, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Gilead Sciences. “Through partnerships with country leadership, the Global Fund, and the U.S. State Department via PEPFAR, Gilead is working to bring lenacapavir to the communities most in need, ahead of the broad rollout of generic versions of the medicine.”

The company also highlighted what it said was its commitment to supporting broad, equitable and sustainable access to lenacapavir for HIV prevention globally,  pointing to its royalty-free voluntary licence agreements with six manufacturers enabling generic supply across 120 low- and lower-middle-income countries to support long-term, lower-cost medication supply.

“As highlighted by today’s announcement and the strong, coordinated leadership demonstrated in South Africa, the continued collaboration between countries, global health partners and industry will be critical to reaching people with new innovations at scale, reducing new HIV infections and advancing our shared goal of ending HIV as a public health threat,” the company said in the statement.

Civic groups have called on South Africa’s government to scale up the volumes for the rollout and expand it to make sure it can be accessed by more people – they have criticised the fact that out of more than 3,000 public clinics, just 300 in 23 districts have been chosen for the rollout, and mobile clinics, which would be more likely accessed by some communities, are not being used.

They also want to see more pressure put on Gilead to drastically expand its current licence territories to help manufacture lenacapavir.

“At the moment, we have a Gilead-driven launch event, but we do not have a credible epidemic-ending plan. The bigger issue is that South Africa appears to have accepted the limits imposed by Gilead rather than challenging them,” said Johnson.

He added that under the current roll-out plan a crucial opportunity to end the HIV epidemic sooner in South Africa was being missed.

“The tragedy is that South Africa is not dealing with a scientific failure –  the science worked. Lenacapavir is one of the most promising HIV prevention tools ever developed. What we are facing is a political and access failure. If we know that roughly two million people need access annually to achieve maximum public health impact, then a faux roll out reaching a fraction of that number inevitably means preventable infections will continue occurring.

“Every year we delay large-scale access is another year in which tens of thousands of South Africans will acquire HIV despite the existence of a prevention tool capable of dramatically reducing transmission. This is why the debate is not really about a rollout. It is about whether South Africa intends to end the epidemic or manage it. The current approach manages the epidemic dismally. An epidemic-ending strategy would look very different,” Johnson 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');

 

Inter Press Service (IPS), IPS News,

Related Articles

• Vulnerable Populations Will Suffer With UNAIDS Early Closure
• XDR-TB Drug Trial Participants Continue to Celebrate its Success
• Activists Challenge Pharma Company Gilead Over HIV Medication

La FIFA a déclaré dans un communiqué qu'elle n'avait aucun rôle à jouer dans les décisions de voyage des pays hôtes du tournoi.

The world often asks whether we can afford to invest in preparedness before a crisis occurs. The more relevant question is whether we can afford not to. Credit: UNICEF/Carmel Ndomba Mbikayi

By Mario Jimenez and Ifeanyi Nsofor
WASHINGTON DC, Jun 9 2026 (IPS)

When the world learned that Ebola was spreading across parts of the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Uganda, one fact stood out above all others: there was no approved vaccine for the virus responsible.

Not because scientists only recently discovered it.

Not because the technology does not exist.

But because the world never made the investment.

 

No Vaccine Exists Because the World Failed to Invest

The current outbreak is caused by the Bundibugyo ebolavirus, one of several species that cause Ebola disease. The virus was first identified in Uganda in 2007. Nearly two decades later, as hundreds of suspected infections and dozens of deaths are reported across Central and East Africa, health workers are confronting the same deadly disease without a licensed vaccine or treatment approved to prevent or treat it respectively.

This is not simply a scientific failure. It is a health equity failure.

The outbreak is unlikely to become another COVID-19. Ebola spreads through direct contact with bodily fluids, making it far less transmissible than airborne viruses. Yet the lesson it offers is no less important. It reveals whose health risks attract sustained investment and whose are allowed to remain neglected.

For years, global health leaders have warned that epidemic preparedness cannot focus only on threats that endanger wealthy countries. Pathogens do not become priorities because of their biological risks alone. They become priorities because of political attention, financial incentives and public visibility.

The result is a troubling pattern: communities facing the greatest risks often have access to the fewest tools.

Bundibugyo virus has caused only a handful of outbreaks since its discovery. Unlike the more common Zaire strain of Ebola, which drove major epidemics in West Africa and eastern Congo, Bundibugyo attracted relatively little research funding and commercial attention. While effective vaccines and treatments were developed for the Zaire strain, investment in countermeasures for Bundibugyo remained limited.

Now the consequences are visible.

 

The Outbreak Exposes a Global Health Equity Gap

Doctors and nurses in eastern Congo and Uganda are relying primarily on supportive care, isolation measures, contact tracing and community engagement to stop transmission. Scientists are racing to develop vaccines and treatments, but those efforts are occurring during an outbreak rather than before one.

The contrast is striking. We are witnessing extraordinary scientific mobilization precisely because the crisis has already begun.

The Cycle of Panic and Neglect Continues

Last week, Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, announced up to US$50 million through its First Response Fund to accelerate vaccine development and support outbreak response. CEPI has committed tens of millions more to advance vaccine candidates being developed by Moderna, the University of Oxford and IAVI. The European Union has mobilized humanitarian funding and emergency supplies. The World Health Organization has activated its highest emergency response mechanisms and is coordinating clinical trials of potential treatments.

Uganda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo have some of the world's most experienced Ebola responders. Their scientists, surveillance officers, laboratory teams, community leaders and frontline health workers have repeatedly demonstrated remarkable expertise and courage under difficult circumstances

These investments are essential and deserve recognition.

But they also raise a difficult question: why did it take an outbreak to generate this level of urgency?

Scientists have understood the threat posed by Bundibugyo virus since 2007. Promising vaccine approaches have existed for years. Researchers have identified monoclonal antibodies that demonstrated protection in animal studies. Yet many of these efforts struggled to secure sustained funding once the immediate threat faded.

This is a recurring problem in global health. Funding surges during emergencies and recedes once headlines disappear. Research programs are launched and then abandoned. Preparedness becomes a priority only after vulnerabilities have already been exposed.

The result is a cycle of panic and neglect.

This is where the health equity dimension becomes impossible to ignore.

Health equity is often discussed as a moral imperative. It is that. But it is also a practical necessity.

Countries that rapidly detect outbreaks, share biological samples and alert the world to emerging threats are providing a global public good. The benefits extend far beyond national borders. Those countries should be able to expect that the products of scientific innovation—vaccines, diagnostics and treatments—will also be available to them in a timely and equitable manner.

Instead, we too often ask vulnerable countries to contribute to global security while denying them equal access to its benefits.

Preparedness Requires More Than Vaccines

The outbreak also highlights another reality that deserves greater attention: strong health systems remain the world’s best defense against emerging epidemics.

As Norway’s International Development Minister Åsmund Aukrust recently observed, “No country can face these challenges alone.” Experience from decades of global health cooperation shows that rapid detection, trained health workers, effective laboratories, community trust and resilient primary healthcare systems remain our most powerful tools against infectious disease threats.

Vaccines matter enormously. But vaccines alone are not preparedness.

The countries currently confronting Ebola understand this better than most. Uganda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo have some of the world’s most experienced Ebola responders. Their scientists, surveillance officers, laboratory teams, community leaders and frontline health workers have repeatedly demonstrated remarkable expertise and courage under difficult circumstances.

The international response succeeds when it strengthens local leadership rather than substitutes for it.

The broader lesson extends far beyond Ebola.

The next global health security emergency will begin where health systems are weakest, where surveillance gaps are largest and where scientific neglect has been allowed to persist.

The world often asks whether we can afford to invest in preparedness before a crisis occurs.

The more relevant question is whether we can afford not to.

On that test, the Bundibugyo Ebola outbreak should make all of us uncomfortable.

 

Mario Jimenez is a health economist working to increase access to immunization in low-income countries. He is a Senior Atlantic Fellow for Health Equity.

Ifeanyi Nsofor is a public health physician and co-founder of the Africa Behavioral Science Network. He is a Senior Atlantic Fellow for Health Equity. In 2015, Ifeanyi co-led the African Union’s Intervention to End Ebola and Strengthen Health Systems in Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone (ASEOWA).

The first Somali set to referee at a World Cup finals has been dropped from the list of officials after he was denied entry to the United States.