Africa - INTER PRESS SERVICE

Fish Value Addition Workshop in Ivory Coast.

By Sidi Tiémoko Touré and Essam Yassin Mohammed
ABIDJAN, Ivory Coast, Feb 19 2026 (IPS)

It is an indictment on the global food system that, despite having some of the richest and most endowed natural resources in the world and a burgeoning youth population, West Africa spends more than $2 billion a year importing aquatic foods to feed its people, almost half of which is spent by Côte d’Ivoire alone.

Fish has long been a cherished staple food in West African diets, providing around two-thirds of all animal protein and featuring in popular dishes such as the Ivorian classic, poisson braisé and Senegal’s thieboudienne.

Yet in recent years, the region’s fishing industry has struggled to meet demand with growing external pressures and threats. Some of the highest levels of illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing in the world costs the region more than $9 billion annually, and increasing vulnerability to climate change is also impacting the sector.

These challenges to domestic production have coincided with a decline in fish consumption from more than 13kg per person a year in 2008 to just over 11.5kg in 2025, despite the ongoing popularity of fish and seafood.

From our perspective, Côte d’Ivoire, along with other West African countries, have enormous potential to embrace the investment rule to “fish where the fish are” and reclaim food sovereignty. Not only would a stronger domestic sector reduce the import bill, but it would also create much-needed jobs, especially for young people, as well as improving diets and food security by providing more highly nutritious fish and seafood.

In short, we believe that boosting homegrown aquaculture would allow West Africa to reap the full benefits of the blue economy.

To that end, Côte d’Ivoire is at the forefront of a transformative journey to get West Africa’s fishing industry back on course, setting an example for other countries.

To begin with, the country has launched an ambitious policy framework dedicated to growing the aquaculture sector, including inland fisheries, which extend the benefits beyond coastal communities.

The $25.6 million Project for the Development of Competitive Value Chains in Aquaculture and Sustainable Fisheries (ProDeCAP) focuses on improving marine, lagoon, and inland fisheries, increasing broodstock capacity, setting up commercial seed supply systems, and developing the fish feed industry. It aims to boost annual aquaculture production by 35,000 tons, adding to the country’s overall fish supply directly and indirectly benefiting around 700,000 people, around half of which are women.

Similarly, the Strategic Program for the Transformation of Aquaculture in Côte d’Ivoire (PSTACI) is focusing on four pillars to stimulate the domestic aquaculture sector. These include creating jobs, particularly for young people and in rural areas, as well as piloting innovations with demonstration projects to increase private investment, strengthening governance and boosting national capacities for supplying fishery products.

At the same time, Côte d’Ivoire will invest $3 million in a new Aquaculture Research Innovation Hub (ARIH), led by global research centre WorldFish. The hub, which will focus on improving feed, genetics and fish health, will help fill the gaps in research and innovation to modernise the sector.

The hub will bring WorldFish’s global expertise to West Africa, leveraging 50 years of innovation in small-scale fisheries and aquaculture. In 2023 alone, WorldFish developed 70 innovations, upskilled almost 120,000 small-scale fishers, farmers, extension officers, suppliers, students, and community workers, and facilitated the production of 436,600 tonnes of farmed fish using improved tools and technologies.

All of these efforts will help fast-track the growth of the sector and leapfrog the conventional trajectory of unsustainable practices by streamlining the adoption of best practices and proven technologies.

But beyond policy, research and innovation, the final piece of the puzzle is the development of the broader value chain to ensure every link that connects the sector is resilient and effective.

For this, Côte d’Ivoire and neighbouring countries need strong private sector partnerships to establish and grow reliable supplies of young fish as well as feed markets, processing infrastructure and sales platforms.

This element is crucial because in each of these stages lies untapped opportunities for new jobs and new sources of food and nutrition. The growth of the aquaculture sector is especially important for women, who can find diverse opportunities in processing and selling fish and other aquatic foods.

To extend the adage: teaching a man to fish might help feed him for a lifetime, but transforming an entire fishing and aquaculture sector will feed, nourish, employ and build resilience across a whole country.

West Africa has both the natural resources and demand for a thriving regional fishing industry. Strategic investments, policies and partnerships are now coming together to make this a reality, offering a swell of opportunities for others to come on board and ride the wave of Africa’s blue economy.

H.E. Sidi Tiémoko Touré, Minister of Animal Resources and Fisheries, Côte d’Ivoire
Dr. Essam Yassin Mohammed, Director General of WorldFish

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');  

Priority reforms include improving childcare, recalibrating social transfers, and closing wage gaps. Credit: IMF

By Bunyada Laoprapassorn
WASHINGTON DC, Feb 18 2026 (IPS)

When Brazil’s unemployment rate dropped to 5.2 percent in November 2025—the lowest in a quarter century—it punctuated an impressive turnaround from the pandemic. Yet, while men’s participation in the labor market has returned to its pre-COVID trend, women have fallen behind significantly.

Getting more people into jobs is especially important because, in Brazil as in many other countries, an aging population is expected to weigh on growth. Our estimates suggest that halving the gap in labor force participation rates between men and women from 20 to 10 percentage points by 2033 could raise Brazil’s growth by 0.5 percentage point per year in the process.

Household responsibilities

The need to look after household and family responsibilities is a major reason why many Brazilian women find it hard to join the labor force—a trend that our analysis, which is based on Brazil’s Continuous Household Sample Survey, investigates further.

This is especially relevant given the ongoing debate about whether Brazil’s flagship conditional cash transfer program, Bolsa Família, is also discouraging women from entering the labor market.

Bolsa Família, which has targeted extreme poverty since 2003, currently provides an average monthly stipend of around US$130 for families that keep children in school and comply with mandatory vaccinations and other health requirements. It benefits around 50 million people—or about a quarter of the population—and was expanded significantly in 2023.

We look at the data to see if Bolsa Família is indeed curtailing women’s labor force participation. We find that, while Bolsa Família does not appear to systemically reduce labor force participation, the transfers are associated with a lower participation for women in households with children 6 years old or younger.

However, it is also important to emphasize that a full assessment of how Bolsa Família relates to economic wellbeing would need to encompass considerations well beyond just participation in the labor force.

Wage disparities

Another factor that could be working against female participation is the pay gap between men and women. We find that, on average, the monthly wage for women tends to be about 22 percent lower relative to men—after controlling for education, age, race, industry, and position. This pay disparity may encourage some women, including those receiving Bolsa Família benefits, to stay at home and care for their younger children instead of joining the labor market.

Policy options

As we explain in the report for our annual economic review (the 2025 Article IV Consultation), several measures can help more women join the labor market and support economic growth in Brazil. These include:

• Expanding access to affordable, accessible, and quality childcare and eldercare services, along with adjustments to the design of parental leave policy
• Adjusting the design of Bolsa Família—such as further tapering the exit from the Bolsa Família benefits upon employment to reduce any possible disincentives from paid work.
• Addressing pay disparities, including through effective implementation of the 2023 landmark Pay Equity Law.

Together, these measures can foster a more supportive environment for women to join the labor market and enhance Brazil’s economic potential.

Bunyada Laoprapassorn is an economist in the IMF’s Western Hemisphere Department.

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');  

Fozia Shashani, 26, a member of the Baloch Yakjehti Committee, said it was “most painful” to hear reports that two Baloch women – Hawa Baloch, 20, and Asifa Mengal, 24 – had taken part in active combat as suicide bombers. The path, she said, was in complete contrast to her belief in peaceful resistance. Yet, […]

Credit: UNICEF/Eyad El Baba
 
What is international humanitarian law? Families flee their shattered homes in Tal al-Hawa neighbourhood in Gaza city. While aid workers serving conflict-affected civilian populations depend on a set of laws to protect them, some warring parties violate these global agreements, from targeting hospitals and schools to blocking aid workers from reaching civilians with lifesaving goods and services. Source: UN News

By Stuart Casey-Maslen
GENEVA, Feb 17 2026 (IPS)

International humanitarian law is at a breaking point, as rampant impunity for serious violations is enabling even greater abuses against civilians and detainees.

Across today’s wars, violations are no longer concealed or exceptional. They are increasingly open, systematic, and unpunished, with catastrophic consequences for those whom the law is supposed to protect.

New analysis of 23 situations of armed conflict between July 2024 and the end of 2025 reveals a consistent pattern: civilians are being killed, abused and starved at scale, while accountability mechanisms either falter or are actively undermined. Genocidal violence in Gaza, a renewed risk of genocide in Sudan, and mass atrocities elsewhere are not isolated horrors. Taken together, they point to a deeper failure – the collapse of meaningful restraint in the conduct of hostilities.

Conflict-related sexual violence has reached epidemic levels. Rape, sexual slavery, and sexual violence used as punishment or as a tool of territorial control have been documented across multiple conflicts, including in Colombia, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Myanmar, and Sudan. Particularly alarming is the growing number of cases involving attacks children, including victims as young as one.

These are not by-products of war, but violations long prohibited under international humanitarian law, now committed with near-total impunity. This occurs with the complicity of many other States, which have a duty to respect and ensure respect international humanitarian law.

This erosion of civilian protection is not primarily the result of gaps in legal knowledge. The rules exist. The problem is political choice – and a persistent failure to enforce, clarify and update the law where it no longer offers meaningful restraint.

Nowhere is this clearer than in the global arms trade. The United Nations Arms Trade Treaty has been widely ratified, including by major exporters such as China, France, and the United Kingdom. In theory, it requires its member States to deny arms transfers where there is a clear risk that weapons will be used to commit serious violations of international law. In practice, legal risk assessments are all too often overridden by strategic and political considerations.

Continued arms exports to Israel, Russia, and others, despite overwhelming evidence of civilian harm, have had devastating consequences on the ground.

Closing this gap does not require a raft of new rules in the short term. It requires the consistent application of existing ones: enforceable, evidence-based export controls; independent scrutiny of licensing decisions; and real accountability where transfers are authorised despite a clear risk that the law will be breached by the recipient.

Certain categories of weapons are though incompatible with the protection of civilians, but do not necessarily violate the already permissive standards. Repeated firing into populated areas of gravity ordnance from the air and inaccurate long-range artillery from the ground has been a major driver of civilian casualties across multiple conflicts.

There is a fundamental lack of clarity on two key rules: first, how close an attack may be launched to a military target while still complying with the law; and second, how much incidental civilian harm is permissible when targeting a military objective.

On both issues, the law urgently requires clarification. Restricting air-delivered weapons to precision-guided munitions alone would already make a measurable difference to civilian survival. Achieving this, however, requires States to clarify and update the rules of international humanitarian law that were drafted in the 1970s.

In State-on-State conflicts such as in Kherson province in Ukraine, drones have been used by Russian forces – and others – to target civilians, sometimes with real-time video footage disseminated online by the perpetrators.

At the same time, armed drones are no longer the preserve of States. Their use by non-State armed groups is increasing rapidly, including by JNIM in the Sahel, Islamic State in Somalia, and the Arakan Army in Myanmar. There is an urgent need for stronger mechanisms to attribute, investigate, and prosecute unlawful drone and autonomous weapon attacks.

Impunity on this scale is not inevitable. It is the product of sustained political and financial neglect. Institutions designed to promote compliance with international humanitarian law – including domestic courts and international tribunals – are under severe strain, with some facing paralysis or closure due to lack of resources.

Judges at bodies such as the International Criminal Court have even been sanctioned simply for carrying out their mandates. If States are serious about protecting civilians, political and financial support for these institutions must be treated as a core obligation and a policy priority, not an optional gesture.

The current moment represents a critical test for international humanitarian law itself. The international lawyer Hersch Lauterpacht once warned that the law existed at the “vanishing point” of international law. That warning is no longer theoretical.

Whether humanitarian law continues to function as a real constraint on warfare, or recedes into symbolic rhetoric, will depend on the political choices states make now – and on whether civilian protection is treated as a legal duty rather than a discretionary one.

Stuart Casey-Maslen is an international lawyer and lead author of War Watch: International Humanitarian Law in Focus at the Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights

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');  

Women perform a disproportionate amount of unpaid labor, hindering their ability to build assets or advance careers. Credit: Manipadma Jena/IPS

By Joseph Chamie
PORTLAND, USA, Feb 17 2026 (IPS)

The global struggle for equality for women and girls has been ongoing for centuries, with no single country having achieved full equality. In many countries, women and girls continue to face discrimination, harassment, unequal treatment, injustice, domestic violence, and a lack of security and safety.

One of the primary goals of this struggle is to dismantle systemic discrimination and secure basic human rights for women and girls. These rights include economic freedom, social independence, voting power, and bodily autonomy.

Discrimination, harassment, lack of rights, limited healthcare, unequal access to resources, education and political power, high rates of violence, forced marriages, and cultural preferences for male children all contribute to the unequal treatment of girls and women

While some progress has been made, the current global situation regarding women’s equality remains concerning. Many women and girls still struggle for their lives, their rights and their dignity.

It wasn’t until the beginning of the 20th century that countries began passing legislation to ensure women the right to vote and stand for election. The first country to permit women to vote was New Zealand in 1893. Approximately a decade later, Australia, Finland, Denmark and Iceland followed suit.

By the middle of the 20th century, more than half of all countries had granted women the right to vote and today, none of the world’s nearly 200 countries bar women from voting. However, some countries effectively or practically deny women this right through the absence of elections or restrictive regimes.

National surveys across different regions of the world find large majorities of the public supporting women’s equality and saying it is very important for women in their country to have the same rights as men. The majority of the public supporting women’s equality varies from highs of 90 percent or more in countries such as Canada, Sweden and the United Kingdom to lows of approximately 55 percent in Kenya, Russia and South Korea.

In contrast, a minority of misogynists consider women inferior to men. This minority often treats women as their personal property, denying them control over their lives and bodies. They restrict women’s political, social and economic rights, and frequently ridicule, intimidate and physically abuse them.

Various indexes and metrics have been used to measure the extent and progress of women’s equality among countries. For example, the Women, Peace and Security Index, based on thirteen indicators of women’s status in 181 countries, focuses on inclusion, justice, rights, security, and safety.

The top five countries that rank high on the Women, Peace and Security Index are Denmark, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, and Finland. Together, these five countries account for approximately 0.3% of the world’s female population. European countries hold nine of the top ten rankings on the index, with the Nordic countries consistently ranking in the top ten for many years.

In contrast, the five bottom countries that rank low on this index are Afghanistan, Yemen, Central African Republic, Syria, and Sudan. Among the ten lowest ranked countries on the index, only one country, Haiti, is not in Africa or Asia (Table 1).

Source: Women, Peace and Security Index.

It is noteworthy that the ten countries with the largest economies are not among the top ranked countries on the index. Among these ten countries, Canada and Germany have the highest rankings of 16 and 21, respectively. In contrast, China and India, which each have about 17% of the world’s female population, are ranked significantly lower on this index, with scores of 89 and 131, respectively.

Another metric used to assess countries’ progress in achieving women’s equality is the United Nations Gender Inequality Index (GII). The GII is a composite metric that measures maternal mortality, teen births, secondary education attainment, share of parliamentary seats, and labor market participation.

No single country has achieved full equality, with women still facing the threat of discrimination, harassment, and gender-based violence. In many developing countries, women and girls continue to experience serious injustices, including forced marriage, and high levels of domestic and sexual violence.

According to the GII, the five countries with the highest ranking in terms of women’s equality are Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, and the Netherlands. Conversely, the five countries with the lowest ranking on the GII are Yemen, Nigeria, Somalia, Chad and Afghanistan. Other rankings, such as the Gender Gap Index of the World Economic Forum and the Best Countries of U.S. News, also produced similar rankings of countries with the highest and lowest levels of women’s equality.

Various factors contribute to the lack of women’s equality and discrimination against women and girls. Notable among these factors are restrictive laws, discriminatory norms, cultural stereotypes, violence risks, and unequal education that value men and boys over women and girls. These misogynistic barriers are reinforced by unconscious bias, weak policy enforcement, economic disparities, and structural disadvantages (Table 2).

Source: Amnesty International.

Men and boys are often given more education, power, resources and opportunities than women and girls. Additionally, traditional or religious norms typically depict males as dominant and females as subordinate. While these norms generally affirm the spiritual equality of men and women, they often perpetuate social and institutional inequality on Earth due to traditional interpretations of sacred religious texts.

Discrimination, harassment, lack of rights, limited healthcare, unequal access to resources, education and political power, high rates of violence, forced marriages, and cultural preferences for male children all contribute to the unequal treatment of girls and women.

Moreover, women also perform a disproportionate amount of unpaid labor, hindering their ability to build assets or advance careers. They face lower pay for equal work and are often concentrated in lower-paying occupations. In many countries, women also have restricted access to land ownership, credit, financial services, and unequal legal protection.

Humanitarian crises, climate change, and pandemics have a tendency to disproportionately affect women, exacerbating existing inequalities. Fragile states and those experiencing conflict also tend to rank poorly in terms of women’s equality.

Women’s inequality also varies within countries. For example, while women make up 50% of the U.S. population, women ‘s inequality persists across social, economic, and political sectors. According to 17 various key indicators of women’s equality in the U.S., one study found that the top five states are Hawaii, Nevada, Maryland, Maine, and Oregon, while the bottom five states are Utah, Texas, Idaho, Arkansas, and Louisiana (Table 3).

Source: WalletHub.

There are only about five years left for the world to fulfill the promises made to girls and women for gender equality in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Realizing gender equality is not only the right thing to do, but it is vital for sustainable development.

Women’s equality is a fundamental human right and a foundation for a peaceful and sustainable world. Progress has been achieved over the last several decades. However, the world is not on track to achieve gender equality by 2030.

During the remaining years, eleven of the biggest challenges have been identified and need to be addressed in order to advance women’s equality. These challenges include discrimination, inequalities, inadequate access to education and healthcare, lack of women in political leadership, violence against women and girls, poverty, and lack of economic opportunities (Table 4).

 

Source: UN Women.

Women and girls face discrimination that hinders their access to education, employment, healthcare, and legal protections. Treating women unfairly and depriving them of their basic human rights leads to the creation of unjust societies.

Approximately 1 in 3 women – estimated at 840 million globally – have experienced partner or sexual violence in their lifetime. In the last 12 months alone, 316 million women –which is 11% of those aged 15 or older – were subjected to physical or sexual violence by an intimate partner.

Major factors contributing to the lack of women’s equality include restrictive laws, discriminatory norms, cultural stereotypes, violence and safety risks, weak enforcement policies, unequal education, economic disparities, inadequate healthcare, lack of political representation, employment segregation, pay gap, unpaid care burden, and unequal household responsibilities.

Achieving women’s equality requires a multi-faceted approach. This includes ensuring their basic human rights, enforcing legal protections against discrimination and violence, ensuring equal pay, education access, economic empowerment, and opportunities, promoting women in leadership roles, dismantling misogynistic stereotypes, advancing inclusive policies, supporting women-led institutions, and encouraging shared domestic responsibility.

Additionally, this multi-faceted approach involves promoting proactive efforts by governments, non-governmental institutions, businesses, schools, community organizations, families, and individuals to ensure equal opportunities, freedom from violence, and fundamental human rights for women and girls.

Joseph Chamie is an independent consulting demographer and former director of the United Nations Population Division.

 

The Security Council armed with veto powers. Credit: UN Photo/Manuel Elías

By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Feb 17 2026 (IPS)

As the campaign for the next Secretary-General gathers momentum – at a relatively slow pace – there is widespread speculation that any candidate running for the post of UN chief will have to abide by the dictates of a politically hostile White House or face a veto in the Security Council.

So far, there are only two declared candidates: former Chilean President Michelle Bachelet and former Director-General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Rafael Grossi from Argentina—with more candidates expected to join the race.

The winning candidate, who will take office in January 2027, will be elected by the 15-member Security Council and subsequently ratified by the 193-member General Assembly (UNGA).

Annalena Baerbock, the president of UNGA, said the selection process is already underway, and the interactive dialogues with candidates have been scheduled for the week of 20 April, where they will present their “vision statements”.

Meanwhile, the US has publicly declared its opposition to some of the basic goals in the UN’s socio-economic agenda, including gender empowerment and policies relating to diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI), while dismissing climate change as “a hoax” and a “giant scam.”
The Trump administration has also downplayed human rights and adherence to international laws—two concepts ingrained in the UN system.

In an interview with the New York Times last January, President Trump said he does not “need international law” to guide his actions, arguing that only his own “morality” and “mind” will constrain his global powers.

So, what would be the fate of any candidate— male or female—who advocates these UN goals? Will there be a battle of the vetoes – as it happened in a bygone era?

Richard Gowan, Program Director, Global Issues and Institutions, International Crisis Group (ICG), who oversees ICG’s work on geopolitics, global trends in conflict and multilateralism, told IPS nobody knows how this race will end.

Obviously UN-watchers will be tracking the initial candidates’ vision statements and public appearances over the coming months, he pointed out.

“But diplomats in New York have a suspicion that the veto powers in the Security Council may suddenly announce support for a new candidate at the last minute to circumvent the entire public process. There is a strong sense that the U.S., China and Russia don’t want to be boxed in by the General Assembly.”

There is also a scenario, he said, where the veto powers cannot agree on a candidate, and the Council ends up grinding out discussions of a candidate right through to December.

“UN officials have even done some contingency planning for what happens if there is not an agreed candidate on 1 January 2027. It is possible that the Security Council might ask Guterres to hang on for a few months, although I don’t think either diplomats or Guterres want that outcome.”

There are definitely a few senior UN officials and ambassadors in New York who wonder if the Council could call on them at the very last minute, said Gowan.

Thomas G. Weiss, Presidential Professor Emeritus, Political Science, and Director Emeritus, Ralph Bunche Institute for International Studies at the CUNY Graduate Center, told IPS it is hard to imagine anyone running for UNSG who would not run into a veto from Washington in a candidacy necessarily addressing the values of cooperation (multilateralism of any shape) as well as honestly discussing such issues as climate, gender (male or female), nuclear proliferation, Palestine, and sovereignty—all “hoaxes” or “con jobs” according to DJT (President Trump) and his junta.

Both the 1996 and 1981 elections, he said, provide “models.”

“The Chinese vetoes probably are the most relevant precedent for Washington going to the mat indefinitely until an “acceptable” candidate emerges. Let’s hope that person is as competent as the compromise of 1996, Kofi Annan”, he declared.

In 1981, Salim Ahmed Salim of Tanzania, was backed by the Organization of African Unity, the Non-Aligned Movement and China. But his bid was blocked by a US veto.

In 1996, a second five-year term for Boutros Boutros-Ghali of Egypt was vetoed by the US – even though he received the support of 14 of 15 members in the Security Council.

In 1981, China cast a record 16 vetoes against Kurt Waldheim to prevent a third term, leading to his withdrawal and the selection of Javier Pérez de Cuéllar.

Meanwhile, there has been an intense campaign for a female UN chief, the first in the 81-year history of the UN. But the US has remained tight-lipped on the widely supported proposal.

The last 9 secretaries-general, all males, include:

António Guterres (Portugal), who took office in January 2017;
Ban Ki-moon (Republic of Korea), from January 2007 to December 2016;
Kofi A. Annan (Ghana), January 1997 to December 2006;
Boutros Boutros-Ghali (Egypt), January 1992 to December 1996;
Javier Pérez de Cuéllar (Peru), January 1982 to December 1991;
Kurt Waldheim (Austria), January 1972 to December 1981;
U Thant (Burma, now Myanmar), who served from November 1961, when he was appointed acting Secretary-General (he was formally appointed Secretary-General in November 1962), to December 1971;
Dag Hammarskjöld (Sweden), from April 1953 until his death in a plane crash in Africa in September 1961; and
Trygve Lie (Norway), who held office from February 1946 to his resignation in November 1952.

As for the U.S., said Gowan, “I don’t believe that Washington has settled on a candidate yet. But the Trump administration is definitely conscious that they have the power to reshape the political culture of the organization if they find someone who aligns with their views”.

He said U.S. diplomats have told other veto powers that they will hold back on various reform proposals and cuts until they have their own candidate as Secretary-General.

A lot of UN members assume that the U.S. won’t accept a female Secretary-General but I think that Washington could back a woman if she was a strong social conservative and willing to make large cuts to the UN system, he argued.

“Right now, there is not an obvious female candidate meeting those criteria, though. I think some candidates who could never align with the U.S. on things like development and diversity are already stepping out of the race.”

Meanwhile, there is a reason that Mia Mottley has gone from being the putative front runner to refocusing on domestic politics.

“I also think that all candidates recognize that they are going to have to talk a lot more about how they will advance the UN’s work on peace and security, which is a priority not only for the U.S. but a lot of member states.”

“That said, one senior UN diplomat recently told me that they cannot see Global South countries accepting another Western candidate after Guterres, regardless of gender. The non-Western members of the Security Council could create a blocking minority in the Security Council to keep candidates from U.S. allies out,” declared Gowan.

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');  

Governments convened in Rome on Monday (February 16) for a critical round of UN biodiversity negotiations, launching the world’s first global review of how countries are acting to protect nature. The sixth meeting of the Subsidiary Body on Implementation (SBI-6) of the Convention on Biological Diversity opened at the headquarters of the Food and Agriculture […]

By CIVICUS
Feb 16 2026 (IPS)

 
CIVICUS discusses the recent protests in Iran with Sohrab Razaghi, executive director of Volunteer Activists, a Netherlands-based diaspora organisation empowering Iranian civil society.

Sohrab Razaghi

Protests triggered by economic grievances erupted across Iran on 28 December, quickly evolving into broader anti-regime protests. The crackdown that followed resulted in what may be the largest massacre in modern Iranian history.

What sparked the protests, and in what ways were they different from previous ones?

Rising prices and the collapse of the national currency initially sparked the protests, but these quickly expanded beyond economic grievances. At least in part, this is because the economy is no longer seen as a purely technical issue but as a measure of the state’s ability to govern. A central question among social groups now is whether the government can manage crises and provide sustainable solutions.

Anger has built up, reflecting broken promises and lost futures. Over the past three decades, four major protest waves – in 2009, 2017, 2019 and 2022 – were met with repression, denial or superficial reforms. This pattern has produced a strong sense of humiliation and political voicelessness.

But perhaps the most decisive factor in the latest wave of protests has been the role of Generation Z, a generation that did not experience the 1979 revolution or the war with Iraq and does not have the ideological attachments of earlier generations. The dividing line is not just age but also expectations, lifestyles and values. While previous generations used to hope for gradual reform within the system, now many young people see no viable future within the current framework. For them, the most rational responses to what they perceive as a structural dead end are disengagement, migration or radical protest.

Recent protests, particularly those of 8 and 9 January, also reflected shifts in protest dynamics, with higher levels of violence visible in both rhetoric and practice. This escalation likely reflects accumulated frustration and political deadlock, but doesn’t necessarily indicate that the state has weakened. Security forces so far appear cohesive and operationally effective, and there are no clear signs of fragmentation inside the coercive apparatus.

But the rise in violence is troubling for democratic forces and civil society. When violent tactics become prominent, organised civic initiatives are marginalised and security-driven narratives prevail, weakening sustained civic action.

Additionally, Israeli and US statements expressing support for protesters and threatening military action had contradictory and largely negative effects.

While such rhetoric initially generated hope among some protesters, the lack of follow-up produced disillusionment and scepticism. Most importantly, statements by foreign governments, including Israel and the USA, strengthened the regime’s narrative. They enabled the authorities to frame protests as the products of foreign interference and protesters as instruments of external powers, including claims of involvement by Mossad agents. This narrative was very useful to justify securitisation and repression.

How have civil society and the media documented human rights violations amid internet shutdowns?

During near-total internet blackouts, local and community-based groups played crucial roles. They recorded the time and location of incidents, collected testimonies from multiple sources and preserved legal, medical and visual documentation while observing basic digital security principles.

When limited internet access became available, information was shared securely with international partners and diaspora networks. These networks helped archive data, liaise with human rights organisations and media and reduce pressure on activists operating inside Iran. International human rights organisations then cross-checked and verified reports before incorporating them into official documentation. Because communication shutdowns, security risks and restricted access to evidence prevented full documentation, they typically presented casualty figures and details of repression conservatively. At the same time, fake news and baseless casualty figures are also prevalent in diaspora and international media reports. It is essential to interrogate such reporting to preserve the credibility of fact-checked, evidence-based reports.

Under severe restrictions, independent and evidence-based documentation has been essential to preserve truth, counter denial and lay the groundwork for future accountability.

What’s limiting sustained pressure for change?

Recent protests have not expanded into broader forms of social organisation. Participation by labour unions, local networks and professional associations has been limited, restricting the potential for sustained institutionalised pressure. Without stronger organisational structures, documentation of abuses won’t necessarily translate into coordinated civic action. Social media-based coordination and mobilisation are effective for the start and first phase of protests, but on-the-ground leadership, networks and organising capacity are instrumental for sustaining protests and increasing pressure for change.

At the discursive level, significant attention has focused on appeals for foreign pressure rather than on building internal coalitions among social groups. In some cases, rhetoric has centred on state collapse rather than democratic transition, a framework that risks instability and further social fragmentation. The use of profanity and violent language – both inside Iran and among the diaspora community – has also alienated families and moderate groups, narrowing rather than broadening support.

Ultimately, for protests to evolve into movements capable of exerting sustained pressure for change, what’s needed is inclusive organisation, coalition-building and a unifying narrative.

What should the international community do to strengthen Iranian civil society?

Sustainable change will depend on domestic organisational capacity, leadership and representation, not external force. So international leaders should avoid war rhetoric and avoid engaging in any form of military intervention. Historical experience suggests that even limited foreign military intervention is unlikely to weaken domestic repression. Instead, it may well increase regime cohesion, at least in the short term, intensify nationalist sentiment and raise the costs faced by civil society activists, who can be easily portrayed as collaborators and traitors.

When supporting Iranian civil society, international allies should prioritise independent, nonviolent civil society organisations rather than opposition groups advocating violence. Narratives of ‘collapse at any cost’ marginalise civic initiatives and undermine the prospects of democratisation.

Long-term investment in capacity strengthening is essential. This includes supporting civic organising skills, digital security, democratic advocacy, nonviolent action and secure communication tools. Over recent decades, resources and repertoires for change within civil society have been weakened. Sustained engagement is required to rebuild these capacities, with up-to-date resources, techniques and tools.

Monitoring, documentation and evidence-based reporting grounded in credible local sources are among the most effective forms of support. Accurate reporting strengthens prospects for accountability and limits the space for propaganda.

Ultimately, sustainable democratic change in Iran will depend on civil society acting independently, rooted in domestic capacities and supported by context-aware, non-interventionist international engagement.

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
LinkedIn
Sohrab Razzaghi/LinkedIn

SEE ALSO
‘The unprecedented level of violence points to a deep crisis of legitimacy’ CIVICUS Lens | Interview with Feminists for Freedom 09.Feb.2026
‘When international attention decreases, state violence often intensifies’ CIVICUS Lens | Interview with Hengaw Organization for Human Rights 27.Jan.2026
Israel vs Iran: new war begins while Gaza suffering continues CIVICUS Lens 19.Jun.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');  

In the latest newsletter of the Elders, Helen Clark reflects on Davos, President Trump’s Board of Peace, and the urgency of pushing back against “might is right.”

By Helen Clark
WELLINGTON, New Zealand, Feb 16 2026 (IPS)

2026 has begun on a deeply troubling note. International law, long regarded as the backbone of global peace and security, is being challenged in ever more brazen ways. Core principles of sovereignty and restraint are being flagrantly breached.

I have recently returned from the World Economic Forum in Davos, where President Trump unveiled his new Board of Peace. The UN Security Council had originally endorsed such a board to oversee the administration of Gaza ad interim. There, despite the declared ceasefire, the humanitarian situation remains critical and Palestinian civilians are still being killed by the occupying military on a near-daily basis.

But what was unveiled at Davos suggests something more worrying. There is not a single mention of Gaza in the charter of the announced board. It appeared to be positioned as an alternative to the UN Security Council.

Among the invited members of the Board of Peace are two indicted by the International Criminal Court. There is a $1 billion price tag for permanent membership of the Board. This is not a proper way to run international affairs. A Board of Peace should remain wholly and urgently focused on the continued crisis in Gaza as provided for in the Security Council’s time-limited mandate.

The framing of the Board of Peace is just one more challenge to a multilateral system whose legitimacy was already being questioned for many reasons.

The UN Charter is in its 81st year. The structures it established, particularly the Security Council, still reflect the world of 1945 rather than that of 2026. The abuse of the veto by permanent members – particularly when this shields violations of international law – has also been profoundly damaging to its credibility.

This has been evident, for example, in repeated use of the veto by Russia to block resolutions on Ukraine and by the USA to block resolutions on Israel-Palestine. Reform of the Security Council is both necessary and overdue. It has been achieved before – with meaningful change in 1965, and it must be achieved again.

At the Munich Security Conference last week, we engaged with decision-makers on how best to navigate a changing world order. I agree with Prime Minister Mark Carney of Canada that recent developments signal a serious rupture of the international order we have known. Countries of all sizes must act together to reject a world governed by raw power, and to safeguard a future grounded in international law.

The Elders will speak out against any attempt to override international law with a doctrine of “might is right”. We will reaffirm and defend an international order rooted in shared values and principles.

This is a moment of choice. Either the international community allows the values that have long underpinned global cooperation to erode through division and sabotage, or it comes together to defend and renew them.

Helen Clark is a New Zealand politician who served as the 37th prime minister of New Zealand from 1999 to 2008 and was the administrator of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) from 2009 to 2017

Source: The Elders’ monthly newsletter.

The Elders is an international non-governmental organisation of public figures noted as senior statesmen, peace activists and human rights advocates, who were brought together by former president of South Africa Nelson Mandela in 2007.

IPS UN Bureau

 

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

A female merchant in Bangkok using her phone as part of her business. Digital technology is a key accelerator of trade growth. Credit: Pexels/Faheem Ahamad

By Witada Anukoonwattaka, Yann Duval, Nikita Shahu and Niccolo Sainati
BANGKOK, Thailand, Feb 16 2026 (IPS)

Trade in the Asia-Pacific region has moved into a new strategic reality. The latest Asia-Pacific Trade and Investment Trends (APTIT) highlights that rapid technological change and a strategic reconfiguration of supply chains are reshaping how economies in the region trade and compete.

Rather than pursuing cost efficiency alone, firms and governments are increasingly prioritizing supply chain resilience, diversification and digital readiness. These forces are altering export performance, changing the geography of trade, and accelerating the rise of digitally driven goods and services across the region

Digital-led trade growth

Export performance reflected this adjustment. Regional export growth slowed sharply from 7.9% in 2024 to 3.3% in 2025 (Figure 1). Additionally, persistent price compression, driven by weak global demand, excess supply and falling commodity prices, pushed the region’s share of global exports down to 39%, extending a decline underway since 2021.

Across subregions, gaps widened. Growth is increasingly concentrated among economies able to capitalize on digital opportunities. South-East Asia and East and North-East Asia outperformed in merchandise trade, supported by their expanding roles in semiconductors, AI-related hardware and advanced digital equipment.

By contrast, exports contracted in South and South-West Asia, where traditional industries remain the backbone of export structures.

A similar pattern emerged in services. In 2025, services exports rose by 5.4%, led overwhelmingly by digitally deliverable services such as ICT, telecommunications, computer services, and business and financial services. These are the functions that enable multinode production, data flows and the coordination of increasingly complex supply networks.

Traditional services such as travel and transport continued to grow but at a slower pace. East and North-East Asia again led regional services’ export expansion.

A shifting geography of trade

The geography of trade is also evolving. For goods, geopolitical risk mitigation is playing a larger role in determining trade routes and partners. Intraregional merchandise trade remains significant with 53% exports and 56% imports, but its share edged down in 2025 as businesses diversified toward extra-regional markets.

Export shares to the European Union and the rest of the world increased, while the United States became a rising destination for most subregions, with the exception of those most directly affected by geopolitical tensions.

Services trade remains more global, with only about 21% of services exports occurring within the region. However, ESCAP analyses point to gradually strengthening intraregional linkages. South-East Asia, for instance, has been redirecting a growing share of its services exports toward East and North-East Asia, reflecting that intra-regional demand for digital coordination functions is increasing within the services trade networks.

Outlook for 2026: Slower growth, higher uncertainty

Looking ahead, the outlook for 2026 remains cautious. Merchandise export volume growth is projected at around 0.6%. Developed economies’ exports are expected to contract by about 1.5% due to their exposure to high-tech supply chains under geopolitical strain and weaker demand in major markets.

Developing Asian economies may show more resilience, but outcomes will hinge on China’s performance and the strength of global technological demand.

Services trade is expected to remain comparatively steady. Digitally deliverable services, especially ICT, computer and business services are likely to continue driving growth. Travel and transport may see gradual improvement, but several risk factors, including policy and regulatory uncertainty in digital trade, climate-related disruptions and increasing compliance burdens for MSMEs, cloud the outlook.

A structural shift, not a temporary distortion

Together, these developments point to a structural transformation in the region’s trade rather than a temporary cycle. On the goods side, firms are reengineering supply chains to build resilience by diversifying markets, relocating stages of production and increasing the share of intermediate goods destined for assembly closer to end markets in the European Union and the United States.

Yet this transition remains delicate: volumes have slowed, margins are compressed, and the region’s global export share continues to slip.

On the services side, digitalization is reshaping growth patterns. The strong growth of ICT, communications, computer and business services reflects the expanding role in supplying digital services, such as data management, logistics platforms and remote business services that keep modern supply chains running

For Asia and the Pacific, particularly its developing economies, future gains will depend on pairing digital transformation with practical resilience strategies. ESCAP’s analyses drawing on RDTII and RIVA point to areas that deserve policymakers’ attention: persistent digital trade regulatory complexity and increasingly dense value chain connections that allow disruptions to spread widely.

These trends underscore the importance of strengthening digital trade cooperation, as well as building resilient logistics and trade facilitation systems to keep intermediate goods moving reliably along supply chains. In this context, increasing participation by countries in the regional UN treaty on facilitation of cross-border paperless trade is a welcome development.

Witada Anukoonwattaka is Economic Affairs Officer, ESCAP; Yann Duval is Chief, Trade Policy and Facilitation Section, ESCAP, Nikita Shahu is Consultant, ESCAP, Niccolo Sainati is Intern, ESCAP.

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 9 a.m. on a Wednesday, Hawa Hussein Farah is already watching the temperature climb. Awake since 6 a.m., she has prepared her three children for school before walking them to class and heading to Suuq Mugdi, an open-air market in Garissa town, to buy the fruit she will sell. When she settles into her […]

Credit: Jonathan Ernst/Reuters via Gallo Images

By Samuel King
BRUSSELS, Belgium, Feb 13 2026 (IPS)

The latest World Economic Forum made clear the current crisis of multilateralism. Over 60 heads of state and 800 corporate executives assembled in Davos under a ‘Spirit of Dialogue’ theme aimed at strengthening global cooperation, but it was preceded by a series of events pointing to a further unravelling of the international system.

On 3 January, Donald Trump launched an illegal military strike on Venezuela to abduct President Nicolás Maduro, which was widely condemned as a violation of international law. On 7 January, he signed an executive order withdrawing the USA from 66 international bodies and processes, including 31 UN entities, such as the UN Democracy Fund, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and UN Women. Then came the launch of Trump’s Board of Peace, evidently an attempt to supplant the UN Security Council. The country that helped build the multilateral system is walking away from the parts it doesn’t like and seeking to reshape the rest in its interests.

Trump’s approach to multilateralism is nakedly transactional. His administration engages with international processes only when they advance immediate US interests and withdraws from those that impose obligations. This disassociates multilateralism from its core principles: accountability over shared standards, equality among nations and universality. It encourages other states to follow suit.

This approach brings devastating financial impacts. US threats to defund international bodies have left institutions scrambling. UN development, human rights and peacekeeping programmes all depended heavily on US financial contributions. The World Health Organization faces shortfalls that threaten its ability to respond to health emergencies because the US government quit without paying its overdue contributions.

The USA’s closest allies aren’t safe. Trump threatened NATO member Denmark with 25 per cent tariffs unless it agreed to the USA’s purchase of Greenland, and suggested he might seize the territory by force. NATO’s Article 5 on collective defence – invoked only once, by the USA after 9/11 – lies in doubt. European states are reacting by seeking strategic autonomy, slashing development aid and reducing UN contributions while finding extra billions for military spending.

Problematic alternatives are looking to capitalise on crisis. At Davos, China positioned itself as the grown-up alternative to Trump, promoting its Friends of Global Governance initiative, a group of 43 mostly authoritarian states including Belarus, Nicaragua and North Korea.

The queue of heads of government meeting China’s leader Xi Jinping shows many states are pivoting this way. But it comes at a cost: in China’s vision of international cooperation, state sovereignty is paramount and there’s no room for international scrutiny of human rights or cooperation to promote democratic freedoms.

It’s the same story with the new Board of Peace. The body originated in a controversial November 2025 Security Council resolution establishing external governance for Gaza, but Trump clearly envisions a permanent, wider role for it. He chairs it in a personal capacity, with full power to veto decisions, set agendas and invite or dismiss members. Permanent membership costs US$1 billion, with the money’s destination unclear.

The Board’s draft charter makes no mention of human rights protections, contains no provisions for civil society participation and establishes no accountability mechanisms. Most members so far are autocratic states such as Belarus, Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Its credibility is further undermined by the fact that Israel has just joined, despite having made a mockery of international humanitarian law. More democratic states have declined invitations, mostly due to concerns about the body’s unclear relationship with the UN. Trump’s response was to threaten increased tariffs against France and withdraw Canada’s invitation. He has made clear he considers himself above international law, casting himself as a de facto world president able to resolve conflicts through personal power and pressure.

As the old order dissolves, civil society must play a critical role in defining what comes next. While the UN – particularly its Security Council, hamstrung by the use of veto powers by China, Russia and the USA – needs reform, it remains the only global framework built on formal equality and universal human rights. As the UN faces assault from those abandoning it or seeking to dilute its human rights mandate, civil society must mobilise to keep it anchored to its founding principles and challenge the hierarchies that exclude global south voices.

It falls on civil society to organise across borders to uphold international law, document violations of international humanitarian and human rights law and demand accountability. Not for the first time, civil society needs to win the argument that might doesn’t make right.

Samuel King is a researcher with the Horizon Europe-funded research project ENSURED: Shaping Cooperation for a World in Transition at CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation.

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');  

13-year-old Ojulu Omod comes to the gold mine site before the day gets too hot. He is out of school and supports his family by mining gold the traditional way. Credit: UNICEF/Demissew Bizuwerk

By Oritro Karim
UNITED NATIONS, Feb 13 2026 (IPS)

Although global rates of child labour have declined since 2020, the practice remains a serious and persistent violation of children’s rights, undermining their safety, social development, and long-term economic stability. These risks are intensified by structural pressures— poverty, climate shocks, protracted conflict, and unsafe migration— that continue to push vulnerable children into crisis, and in some cases, trafficking and exploitation. The United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) warns that African countries remain among the most affected regions, underscoring the urgent need for coordinated policy action, cross-border cooperation, and sustained investment to protect children on the move and those at risk of labour exploitation.

Roughly 137.6 million children across the world are engaged in child labour, representing 7.8 percent of all children globally. Of this number, approximately 54 million children are engaged in particularly hazardous work—such as mining and construction, or work performed for over 43 hours per week.

In a newly-released data brief analyzing child labour trends across Eastern and Southern Africa, UNICEF found approximately 41 million children—nearly one third of the global total—are engaged in child labour as of 2024, accounting for roughly one in five children in the region. While this represents progress from the 49 million children recorded in 2020, UNICEF warns that these gains remain fragile and could be reversed without strengthened policies and adequate financing.

“Children belong in classrooms, not workplaces,” said Etleva Kadilli, UNICEF Regional Director for Eastern and Southern Africa. She emphasized that ending child labour requires an inclusive approach that aims to revitalize education systems and strengthen protection measures for children worldwide.

“Supporting parents with decent work is essential so children can go to school, learn, play, and build a brighter future,” Kadilli added, urging governments, the private sector, civil society, and communities to work together to build a coordinated response aligned with “national and continental commitments” to put a definitive end to child labour.

The report highlights the severity of the crisis: 13.4 million children in Eastern and Southern Africa are engaged in hazardous work. It is only second to West and Central Africa when it comes to the prevalence of child labour globally. Education disparities are particularly pronounced, with six in ten adolescents engaged in child labour out of school, compared with just two in ten of their non-working peers.

According to the report, Eastern and Southern Africa has a disproportionately high share of young children engaged in child labour compared to other regions. Roughly 65 percent of children in child labour in the region are between the ages of 5 and 11, which greatly contrasts with other parts of the world where older adolescents make up a larger share. Although notable progress has been made in reducing child labour across all age groups, the decline has been slowest among the youngest children.

UNICEF notes that child labour in Eastern and Southern Africa is heavily concentrated in agriculture, which accounts for approximately 78 percent of all cases among children aged 5 to 17. This is even more pronounced among younger children, with more than 80 percent of those aged 5 to 11 working in agricultural fields. However, hazardous work is disproportionately concentrated in other sectors, with 55 percent of child labor in industry and 56 percent in services being classified as hazardous, compared to the 26 percent found in agriculture.

On February 11, during the Sixth Global Conference on the Elimination of Child Labour in Marrakesh, Morocco, the International Organization for Migration (IOM) called on governments to strengthen protection measures, enhance international cooperation, and improve monitoring systems to ensure that migration and trafficking are central to efforts to end child labour. The agency emphasized that unsafe migration is a key driver of child labour, as displaced communities often resort to it in the absence of access to basic services, stable livelihoods, and social protection.

“If we are serious about ending child labour, we must face a reality that is still too often overlooked: migration,” said Amy Pope, IOM Director-General. “Today, millions of children are on the move, they’re forced by conflict, they’re pulled by poverty, they’re displaced by the impact of climate shocks. And they’re searching for opportunity and for safety. Evidence shows that migrant children are often the most exposed to child labour. They work longer hours, they earn less, they are less likely to attend school, and they face higher risks of injury, exploitation, and death.”

According to the latest figures from IOM, approximately 30,000 child victims of trafficking have been identified globally, though the true number is likely far higher due to widespread underreporting and gaps in detection. Children account for nearly one in four detected trafficking victims worldwide, with roughly 20 percent aged between 9 and 17 years of age.

Among all identified victims, 61 percent face sexual exploitation, with girls being disproportionately affected. Recruitment into armed groups is common among boys. Traffickers commonly exert control through psychological, physical, and sexual abuse, as well as threats against victims or their families and restrictions on finances, medical care, essential services, and freedom of movement.

Pope underscored the urgency of closing systemic gaps in labour governance and protection systems that leave migrant children vulnerable to trafficking and exploitation. “These children are often missing from child labour policies, overlooked in protection systems, and invisible in the data that guides decisions,” she said. “Along migration routes, children are exploited in agriculture, domestic work, hospitality, and construction — and these abuses follow them across borders wherever protection fails. Protection must move with the child: prevention must reflect real labour and mobility realities, and systems must work together across sectors and borders.”

UNICEF is calling on the international community to address both the root causes and consequences of child labour. The plan includes expanding social protection programs for vulnerable families, promoting universal access to quality education, strengthening monitoring efforts to identify at-risk children, ensuring decent work opportunities for youth and adults, and enforcing stronger labour laws to enhance corporate accountability and eliminate exploitation across supply chains. Together, these efforts aim to ensure that families are not forced to rely on their children for survival—and that children are free to learn, grow, and simply be children.

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');  

Five former UN Secretaries-Generals
 
United Nations Faces Crisis Amid Global Retreat on Rights and Democracy

By Widad Franco
UNITED NATIONS, Feb 13 2026 (IPS)

United Nations member countries will select a new UN secretary-general this year to succeed António Guterres in January 2027. The change in leadership comes at a time when human rights and democracy, as well as the international organizations created to uphold those principles and provide lifesaving assistance, are under unprecedented attack.

So far member countries have formally nominated only two candidates: former Chilean President Michelle Bachelet and International Atomic Energy Agency Director-General Rafael Grossi from Argentina.

The threats to the global human rights system demand a courageous leader at the UN who will put human rights at the heart of its agenda. Yet the selection process gives veto power over any candidate to the five permanent members of the UN Security Council: Britain, China, France, Russia, and the United States.

But human rights are clearly not a priority for China, Russia, or the United States.

Human Rights Watch and others have long documented attempts by China and Russia to defund and undermine the UN’s human rights pillar. More recently, the United States, which played a key role in creating the UN and its human rights architecture in 1945, has rejected and defunded dozens of UN programs promoting rights and humanitarian assistance.

The Trump administration has also withheld billions of dollars in UN dues, which has been a major factor in the organization’s crippling financial crisis. While Washington recently announced an initial payment toward its arrears, its actions have nonetheless seriously affected the UN’s ability to do its work.

US President Donald Trump has also been trying to sideline the UN by establishing a “Board of Peace,” modeled after the Security Council, with himself as chairman for life. Invited leaders include serial rights abusers from China, Belarus, Hungary, and Saudi Arabia, along with two men—Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Russian President Vladimir Putin—facing International Criminal Court warrants.

The UN needs a leader willing to stand up to major powers and abusive governments to defend victims of abuses and marginalized communities, and aggressively support accountability for serious crimes.

As member states nominate additional candidates, they should put forward a diverse pool, especially women and others with proven track records on human rights, and ensure a competitive and transparent process that places an exceptional individual committed to human rights atop the UN.

Widad Franco is UN Advocate, Human Rights Watch

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');  

Dawn is breaking and the world’s biggest refugee camp stirs to life. Smoke rises from small cooking fires among rows of bamboo and tarpaulin shelters as children line up for food. For 38-year-old Mon Bahar, one of over 1.1 million Rohingya refugees in a sprawling network of camps that make up Cox’s Bazar in Bangladesh, […]

As glaciers shrink and vanish, changes in water flows pose a growing risk to the water, food and livelihood security of billions of people. Credit: FAO

By QU Dongyu
ROME, Feb 12 2026 (IPS)

Glaciers – the world’s hidden water banks – are a source of life for billions. The seasonal melt from mountains and glaciers sustains some of the world’s most important rivers, such as the Indus, the Nile, the Ganges and the Colorado. Those and other mountain-fed rivers irrigate crops, provide drinking water for nearly two billion people, and power electricity generation.

But, as glaciers shrink and vanish, changes in water flows pose a growing risk to the water, food and livelihood security of billions of people.

In the short term, accelerated melting can trigger environmental hazards: flash floods, glacial lake outburst floods, avalanches and landslides.

In the long term, the glaciers as water sources will simply disappear.

By century’s end, most glaciers will contribute far less water than they do today, undermining agriculture in both mountain villages and sprawling lowland breadbaskets downstream.

We need policies and collaboration that address glacier-fed water systems, cross-border cooperation, and risk-sharing and early warning mechanisms – especially as rivers fed by glaciers often span multiple countries

Mountains cover more than a quarter of the world’s land and are home to 1.2 billion people, but these regions are heating up more rapidly than the global average. Mountain communities are especially vulnerable to increasing climate variability and decreasing seasonal water availability for agriculture and irrigation. With often no viable alternative water supply, the loss of agricultural production can lead to climate displacement and greater instability.

Five of the past six years have seen the most rapid glacier retreat on record, and the impacts are already being felt.

Communities from the Andes to the Himalayas are experiencing shorter snow seasons, erratic runoff, and the loss of reliable water. In Peru, dwindling glaciers have slashed crop yields. In Pakistan, reduced snowmelt threatens seasonal planting cycles. Many glaciers have already reached or are expected to reach “peak water” – the point at which meltwater runoff is at its maximum, after which flows will gradually decline – in the coming two or three decades. This means everyone who depends on glacier-fed rivers faces increasing scarcity when population growth will push water demand even higher.

Beyond science and survival, the disappearance of glaciers erases something less tangible but equally profound. For Indigenous Peoples and mountain communities across Asia, Latin America, Africa and the Pacific, glaciers are sacred. Their melting erodes traditions, rituals, identity and cultural heritage bound to mountain landscapes for centuries.

While there is still time to act, global responses remain fragmented and inadequate. That’s why the United Nations declared 2025 the International Year of Glaciers’ Preservation – a clear reminder that preserving these frozen ecosystems means protecting our future.

To ensure food and water security from the peaks to the plains, a bold shift in policy, investment and governance is urgently needed.

Broadly speaking, cutting greenhouse gas emissions, improving water management, and strengthening early warning systems, adaptative agriculture and sustainable agrifood systems are necessary.

We need to turn the challenges posed by melting glaciers into opportunities to the benefit of all.

Agriculture, both a major water user and a key sector for adaptation, can itself be a solution when developed sustainably. Techniques like terrace farming, agroecology, agroforestry and crop diversification – practiced by mountain communities for centuries – help preserve soil and water, reduce disaster risk and support livelihoods. Such adaptation efforts should be inclusive, drawing on Indigenous Peoples’ knowledge and addressing root vulnerabilities like poverty and gender inequality.

We must also mobilize investments in water and agricultural infrastructure. This includes more climate finance to support vulnerable mountain communities that struggle to access training, funding and innovation.

In addition, governments need to align strategies, policies and plans to address this critical nexus between water, agriculture and climate resilience. Mountains are often absent from national climate policies and global adaptation frameworks. We need policies and collaboration that address glacier-fed water systems, cross-border cooperation, and risk-sharing and early warning mechanisms – especially as rivers fed by glaciers often span multiple countries. This also includes reviewing basin-wide water allocation strategies, plans and investment in infrastructure to improve water use efficiency, and step up glacier monitoring and research.

Preparing for a world with fewer glaciers and less of their precious water requires innovation and coordination. In Kyrgyzstan, FAO has been helping experts construct artificial glaciers – ice towers created by spraying mountain water and that gradually melt in summer. In the region of Batken alone, this initiative has helped store over 1.5 million cubic meters of ice, enough to irrigate up to 1,750 hectares.

In Ladakh, India, the social enterprise Acres of Ice has developed automated ice reservoirs to capture unused water in autumn and winter and freeze it until spring. In the Peruvian Andes, a community-based initiative is addressing the deterioration of water quality from minerals exposed by receding glaciers through a natural filtration system using native plants.

But far more needs to be done, together. Glaciers matter because water matters. To ignore their rapid retreat is to gamble with global food and water security.

—

FAO is mandated to lead the global observance of International Mountain Day, coordinated through the Mountain Partnership Secretariat, which is financially supported by the governments of Italy, Andorra and Switzerland. The Secretariat collaborated closely with UNESCO and the World Meteorological Organization, co-facilitators of the International Year of Glaciers’ Preservation 2025.

 

Excerpt:

QU Dongyu is Director-General of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

A photograph of the 1971 Licorne nuclear test, which was conducted in French Polynesia in the Pacific Ocean. Credit: CTBTO

By John Burroughs
SAN FRANCISCO, USA, Feb 12 2026 (IPS)

The most recent agreement limiting U.S. and Russian strategic nuclear arsenals, New START, expired on February 5, and prospects for any kind of follow-on agreement are very uncertain.

Progress over several decades in halting the growth of nuclear arsenals and then in reducing them is in acute danger of being undone. That is despite the fact that the objective of “cessation of the nuclear arms race” is embedded in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, a keystone multilateral global security agreement.

In a U.S. statement delivered February 6 in the Conference on Disarmament, Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Thomas DiNanno said that a “new architecture” is needed, one that takes “into account all Russian nuclear weapons, both novel and existing strategic systems, and address[es] the breakout growth of Chinese nuclear weapons stockpiles.”

That is a challenging project. An informal arrangement between the United States and Russia for transparently abiding by New START limits for at least a short period of time seems within the realm of possibility.

But obstacles to successful negotiation of a new treaty or treaties involving the United States, Russia, and China are major.

The Chinese have shown no interest in discussing limits on their arsenal, which remains much smaller than the U.S. and Russian arsenals. Russia wants negotiations to address U.S. missile defense plans and non-nuclear strategic strike capabilities.

The United States wants Russian non-strategic nuclear weapons and novel systems like a long-range nuclear-armed torpedo, both not limited by New START, to be addressed. More broadly, the ascendance of authoritarian nationalism and acute geopolitical tensions are not conducive to progress.

Nonetheless, especially with the next five-year Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference coming up this spring, it must be emphasized that the United States, Russia, and China are bound by the NPT Article VI obligation to pursue in good faith negotiations on “cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date” and on nuclear disarmament.

When the negotiations on the NPT were completed in 1968, cessation of the nuclear arms race was understood to centrally involve a cap on strategic arsenals held by the U.S. and the Soviet Union, a ban on nuclear explosive testing, and a ban on producing fissile materials for nuclear weapons.

Ending nuclear arms racing was seen as setting the stage for negotiations on nuclear disarmament, meaning the elimination of nuclear arms.

After the NPT entered into force in 1970, the United States and Russia expeditiously moved to cut back on arms racing by negotiating bilateral treaties limiting delivery systems and missile defenses.

The size of the Soviet stockpile of nuclear warheads, however, continued to climb until the mid-1980s. Then a series of treaties, above all the 1991 START I agreement, dramatically reduced the two arsenals while still leaving in place civilization destroying numbers of warheads.

With the demise of New START, there is no treaty regulating the arsenals of the United States, Russia, China, and other nuclear-armed states. China is expanding its arsenal and the United States and Russia are poised to follow suit. The three countries also in differing ways are diversifying their arsenals and increasing the capabilities of delivery systems.

Increasing, diversifying, and modernizing nuclear arsenals as now underway or planned amounts to a repudiation of the NPT objective of cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and fails to meet the legal requirement of good faith in pursuing that objective.

The NPT Review Conference would be an appropriate setting for launching an initiative to reverse this dangerous and unlawful trend. It must also be stressed that arms control among the three powers does not and should not exclude multilateral negotiations for establishment of the “architecture” of a world free of nuclear weapons.

John Burroughs is Senior Analyst, Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Policy

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');  

US President Barack Obama delivers his first major speech, stating a commitment to seek peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons, in front of thousands in Prague, Czech Republic, April 5, 2009. Credit: Official White House Photo by Pete Souza

By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Feb 12 2026 (IPS)

When the nuclear Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) between the US and Russia expired last week, it ended a historic era— but triggered widespread speculation about the future.

UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said “February 5 was a grave moment for international peace and security”.

For the first time in more than half a century, he pointed out, “we face a world without any binding limits on the strategic nuclear arsenals of the Russian Federation and the United States of America – the two States that possess the overwhelming majority of the global stockpile of nuclear weapons.”

US President Donald Trump dismissed the termination of the treaty rather sarcastically when he told the New York Times last month: “if it expires, it expires”—and denounced the expiring treaty as “a badly negotiated deal”.

“We will do a better agreement”, he promised, adding that China, which has one of the world’s fastest growing nuclear arsenals, “and other parties” should be part of any future treaty.

The Chinese, according to the Times, “have made clear they are not interested”.

Currently, the world’s nine nuclear powers are the US, UK, Russia, France and China—all permanent members of the Security Council—plus India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea.

Collectively, they possess an estimated 12,100 to 12,500 nuclear warheads, with Russia and the US owning nearly 90% of the total eve while all nine are actively modernizing their arsenals.

Jonathan Granoff, President, Global Security Institute told IPS the START Treaty should be extended at least a year by formal or informal means. Is that as good as obtaining a new treaty that would include China as the US administration wants? No.

“Is it as good as fulfilling legally required steps such as adherence to the International Court of Justice’s (ICJ) unanimous ruling to negotiate the universal elimination of nuclear weapons or the fulfillment of the promise of nuclear disarmament embodied in Article 6 of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT)? No”.

However, argued Granoff, doing nothing is asserting that a modest threat reducing easily obtained step now should not be taken because there are better ways forward. A modest positive step is no impediment to moving in other desired manners.

Fully terminating START communicates to the entire world that the US and Russia are so diplomatically inept that they cannot be trusted to continue to hold the entire world hostage to annihilation by holding thousands of first-use-ready nuclear weapons over everyone’s heads without adequate reasonable restraint, said Granoff.

The arguments being put forth as to why nothing can be done are inadequate.

First, the US argues that a new arrangement, a new treaty, is needed to bring China into the fold of restraint, he said.

“A modest step of extending START for a year by mutual presidential decrees while new negotiations take place does not negate creating a new treaty that would include China.”

Second, the arguments used to rationalize the new arms race fail to consider the folly of producing more accurate, usable, and powerful nuclear weapons”, declared Granoff.

Guterres pointed out the dissolution of decades of achievement could not come at a worse time – the risk of a nuclear weapon being used is the highest in decades.

“Yet even in this moment of uncertainty, we must search for hope. This is an opportunity to reset and create an arms control regime fit for a rapidly evolving context.”

“I welcome that the Presidents of both States have made clear that they appreciate the destabilizing impact of a nuclear arms race and the need to prevent the return to a world of unchecked nuclear proliferation.

“The world now looks to the Russian Federation and the United States to translate words into action. I urge both States to return to the negotiating table without delay and to agree upon a successor framework that restores verifiable limits, reduces risks, and strengthens our common security’, said Guterres.

In a statement released last week, Parliamentarians for Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament (PNND), a global network of legislators working to achieve a nuclear weapons-free world, said the importance of the New START treaty is hard to overstate.

“As other nuclear treaties have been abrogated in recent years, this was the only deal left with notification, inspection, verification and treaty compliance mechanisms between Russia and the US. Between them, they possess 87% of the world’s nuclear weapons.”

The demise of the treaty will bring a definitive and alarming end to nuclear restraint between the two powers. It may very well accelerate the global nuclear arms race, PNND warned.

This was one of the key reasons that on January 27, 2026, the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists reset the Doomsday Clock to 85 Seconds to Midnight.

Last year, PNND Co-President Senator Markey introduced draft legislation into the US Senate urging the government to negotiate new post-START agreements with Russia and China. The legislation is supported by a number of other Senators and by a companion bill in the House of Representatives. But this seems to have fallen on deaf ears in the Trump Administration.

Granoff, providing a deeper analysis, told IPS the scientific data makes clear that a full-scale nuclear war between the US and Russia would annihilate humanity and that a limited nuclear exchange of less than 2% of the world’s arsenals would put around 5 million tons of soot into the stratosphere leading billions of deaths and the devastation of modern civilization everywhere.

“Realism reveals that the alleged need to duplicate the arsenals of adversary nations is not needed for deterrence. Realism also reveals that there is actually little to no meaningful difference between a nation having 600 (as China does now) or over 1400 deployed nuclear weapons, mirroring the US and Russia, or 30,000 nuclear weapons as Russia and the US each had at the height of the last arms race”.

“The reality is that devastation globally of a small portion of the world’s nuclear arsenals would be unambiguously unacceptable to any sane person. We could say that realism informs us that we have moved from Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) to Self-Assured Destruction (SAD). The fact is that if any of the 9 states with the weapons were to use several hundred nuclear weapons that nation itself would also be devastated. MAD today reveals a new acronym, SAD.”

Meanwhile, a posting in the US State Department website reads:

Treaty Structure: The Treaty between the United States of America and the Russian Federation on Measures for the Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms, also known as the New START Treaty, enhances U.S. national security by placing verifiable limits on all Russian deployed intercontinental-range nuclear weapons. The United States and the Russian Federation had agreed to extend the treaty through February 4, 2026.

Strategic Offensive Limits: The New START Treaty entered into force on February 5, 2011. Under the treaty, the United States and the Russian Federation had seven years to meet the treaty’s central limits on strategic offensive arms (by February 5, 2018) and are then obligated to maintain those limits for as long as the treaty remains in force.

Aggregate Limits

Both the United States and the Russian Federation met the central limits of the New START Treaty by February 5, 2018, and have stayed at or below them ever since. Those limits are:

• 700 deployed intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), deployed submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs), and deployed heavy bombers equipped for nuclear armaments;
• 1,550 nuclear warheads on deployed ICBMs, deployed SLBMs, and deployed heavy bombers equipped for nuclear armaments (each such heavy bomber is counted as one warhead toward this limit);
• 800 deployed and non-deployed ICBM launchers, SLBM launchers, and heavy bombers equipped for nuclear armaments.

This article is brought to you by IPS NORAM, in collaboration with INPS Japan and Soka Gakkai International, in consultative status with the UN’s Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC).

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');  

Africa’s challenge lies not in a lack of ambition, but in ensuring that governance and accountability mechanisms are strong enough to turn commitments into results. Credit: Busani Bafana/IPS

By Françoise Uwumukiza
Feb 11 2026 (IPS)

Africa has never lacked agricultural strategies. Since the launch of the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP) in 2003, governments have pledged repeatedly to spend at least 10 per cent of public budgets on agriculture and to raise productivity through better investment and coordination. The African Union reaffirmed this target in subsequent declarations, such as Malabo in 2014 and the Kampala CAADP Strategy (2026-2035).

Yet, two decades on, one in five Africans still faces hunger, and few countries have met the budget commitment. With the upcoming African Union Summit around the corner, it is time to reflect on whether the continent’s food systems are finally on a path to lasting transformation. The lesson is clear: Africa’s challenge lies not in a lack of ambition, but in ensuring that governance and accountability mechanisms are strong enough to turn commitments into results.

The Kampala Correction

Adopted in 2025, the Kampala Declaration and Action Plan signalled a quiet but significant shift in Africa’s food and agricultural governance — recognising that transformation depends as much on political accountability as on policy and investment.

With the upcoming African Union Summit around the corner, it is time to reflect on whether the continent's food systems are finally on a path to lasting transformation
For the first time, parliaments are at the centre of the CAADP process. Legislators are now tasked with aligning national laws to continental targets, ensuring that agriculture, nutrition, climate and trade policies work in concert, and subjecting executive commitments to real oversight.

This correction matters. The Kampala Declaration recognises that accountability must extend beyond governments alone. It calls for stronger legislative scrutiny, transparent budget processes, and active participation by civil society and local authorities to ensure commitments translate into results. Without such checks and coordination, implementation will continue to drift.

The African Food Systems Parliamentary Network (AFSPaN) has translated this broader governance mandate into a Ten-Year Parliamentary Call to Action (2026–2035). It urges legislatures to:

• Align and update laws governing food, trade, climate and health;
• Scrutinise agricultural budgets and track spending efficiency;
• Institutionalise partnerships with civil society and local authorities;
• Guarantee gender- and youth-responsive policies; and
• Build data and analytical capacity to support evidence-based debate.

The Political Economy of Food

This is also a question of priorities. In many countries across Africa, debt-service costs often exceed agricultural budget. The continent cannot rely indefinitely on external aid while under-investing domestically in food and nutrition security. Parliamentarians have the constitutional authority to decide how money is allocated and to hold governments accountable for how it is spent. They should use this authority to ensure that fiscal policy — including debt management and investment decisions — directly supports long-term food and nutrition security.

Strong oversight is not an obstacle to executive action; it is the precondition for efficiency. Countries that have embedded accountability — such as Rwanda, where performance contracts and results-based budgeting are standard — demonstrate that governance can accelerate progress more effectively than any single financing instrument.

Accountability as the Missing Infrastructure

As the heads of state gather at the AU summit, the Kampala Declaration offers a timely reminder that Africa’s food crisis is as much a governance challenge as a production one. Infrastructure, markets and agricultural inputs remain vital, but the missing infrastructure deficit is institutional. Without transparent laws, credible budgets and measurable outcomes, even a well financed investment cannot deliver a lasting transformation.

The next decade under CAADP must therefore prioritise governance. The Kampala Declaration makes clear that success will be determined by technical agencies and political institutions. Its real test will be whether parliaments exercise the courage to challenge under-performance and to legislate for long-term resilience.

Parliamentarians have finally been given the mandate to connect these dots. They must now use it.

 

Hon. Françoise Uwumukiza, Deputy Secretary-General, African Food Systems Parliamentary Network (AFSPaN)

Excerpt:

Hon. Françoise Uwumukiza is Deputy Secretary-General, African Food Systems Parliamentary Network (AFSPaN)

UN Secretary-General António Guterres addresses the 426th meeting of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People (CEIRPP). Credit: UN Photo/Evan Schneider

By Oritro Karim
UNITED NATIONS, Feb 11 2026 (IPS)

Since the ceasefire agreement between Israel and Hamas in October of last year, humanitarian conditions in Gaza have notably improved — but aid agencies warn that progress is extremely fragile. Acute shortages of lifesaving medical care and psychosocial support persist, hunger remains widespread, with conditional cash assistance as the primary barrier preventing full-scale food insecurity, while Israeli attacks continue to undermine stability and humanitarian efforts.

Addressing the 2026 Opening Session of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, United Nations (UN) Secretary-General António Guterres warned of the urgency of the current situation in Gaza.

“We enter 2026 with the clock ticking louder than ever. Will the year ahead bend towards peace–or slip into the abyss of despair?” Guterres said.

Guterres urged all parties to fully implement the ceasefire agreement, exercise maximum restraint, and comply with international law and UN resolutions, while calling for the rapid and unimpeded delivery of humanitarian aid, particularly through the Rafah crossing, where aid personnel face the most severe restrictions. He also condemned the suspension of international NGOs, explaining that it “defies humanitarian principles, undermines fragile progress, and worsens the suffering of civilians,” adding that shelter, food, education materials, and other basic necessities must reach those in need.

In recent months, food security conditions in Gaza have shown notable, though uneven, improvement. Since the ceasefire went into effect, the World Food Programme (WFP) and the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) have brought over 10,000 trucks of aid into Gaza, representing roughly 80 percent of all humanitarian cargo. With this, the enclave was able to narrowly avoid the onset of famine.

WFP’s deputy executive director Carl Skau noted that most families he met were “eating at least once a day”, with some even managing two meals. Commercial goods such as vegetables, fruit, chicken, and eggs have gradually returned to local markets, while the distribution of recreational kits has helped children cope with the psychological toll of over two years of conflict.

However, progress remains fragile. The latest Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC) assessment estimates that approximately 77 percent of Gaza’s population continues to face crisis-level food insecurity (IPC Phase 3), with around 100,000 people facing catastrophic conditions (IPC Phase 5). Moreover, most nutritious foods available in markets remain financially out of reach for civilians, leaving the vast majority of households heavily dependent on humanitarian food assistance.

For Gaza’s most vulnerable families, conditional cash assistance remains essential to accessing food. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), more than 3,200 agricultural households are currently supported through FAO cash programs, which also enable over 1,200 farmers to continue crop production and help more than 2,000 herders protect their livestock.

As markets gradually stabilize, humanitarian actors are seeking to shift their approach in favor of one that prioritizes building self-sufficiency. WFP has indicated its goal to transition to cash assistance as market conditions improve, shifting emergency relief efforts to restoring local food production and economic systems to allow for vulnerable families to be able to afford food. However, these efforts would require a significant upscale in funding, coordinated efforts between the international community, and the free flow of aid.

Meanwhile, the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) reports that Palestinians continue to face widespread insecurity, driven by routine attacks on civilians and critical infrastructures. On February 5, the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) released a humanitarian situation report documenting a sharp increase in airstrikes, shelling, gunfire, and fatalities between January 30 and February 5 compared to previous weeks. According to Gaza’s Ministry of Health, at least 82 Palestinians were killed and 162 injured during that period, including children and a health worker, alongside extensive damage to civilian infrastructure.

Further underscoring the risks faced by aid workers, the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies reported on February 4 that a paramedic was killed while providing assistance in the Mawasi area. That same day, OCHA reiterated that civilians and humanitarian personnel “must never be targeted or used to shield military activities,” stressing that children and aid workers are afforded special protections under international humanitarian law.

The UN has also stressed that living conditions remain especially dire for displaced communities across Gaza. On February 3, heavy insecurity in the Al Mahatta and Sanafour areas of Gaza City forced approximately 40 families to flee their homes, with only 10 families able to return by the following morning. UN figures indicate that “capacity and funding constraints” have limited humanitarian support to only roughly 40 percent of the remaining functional 970 displacement sites across Gaza.

Healthcare needs are similarly overwhelming, as a steady influx of injuries and disease is compounded by the near-total collapse of Gaza’s health system. According to Jonathan Fowler, Senior Communications Manager of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), the agency previously operated 22 clinics operating across the Gaza strip before the war, which has now fallen to just six.

“That makes it incredibly difficult to do our work and so many of our locations have been heavily damaged or indeed completely destroyed,” Fowler said. “On top of that, we remain banned by the Israeli authorities from bringing in any of our own supplies.” Despite numerous access and security constraints, UNRWA aims to assist approximately 15,000 patients each day, underscoring the scale of unmet medical needs across the most vulnerable areas.

Furthermore, OHCHR has documented a sharp rise in cases of mistreatment and abuse against displaced Palestinians by Israeli military forces, particularly along the newly reopened Rafah border crossing. As of February 5, Palestinians returning through the crossing for three consecutive days have reported consistent patterns of “ill-treatment, abuse, and humiliation”.

According to testimonies collected by the agency, returnees were escorted from the crossing to military checkpoints, where some were handcuffed, blindfolded, threatened, and intimidated. Others reported being subjected to invasive body searches, having personal belongings and money confiscated, and facing physical violence and degrading interrogations. Several individuals were also denied access to medical care and bathroom facilities, with some forced to urinate in public.

OHCHR also documented allegations that returnees were offered money to return to Egypt permanently or pressured to act as informants for the Israeli military.

“The international community has a responsibility to ensure that all measures affecting Gaza strictly comply with international law and fully respect Palestinians’ human rights,” said Ajith Sunghay, head of the UN Human Rights Office in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. “After two years of utter devastation, being able to return to their families and what remains of their homes in safety and dignity is the bare minimum.”

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');