Africa - INTER PRESS SERVICE

Press Conference to mark the end of the 48th Regular CARICOM Heads of Government Meeting (L-R) CARICOM Secretary General Dr. Carla Barnett, Prime Ministers Philip Davis (Bahamas), Dr. Keith Rowley (Trinidad & Tobago), Mia Mottley (Barbados), Andrew Holness (Jamaica) and President Dr. Irfaan Ali (Guyana).

By Alison Kentish
DOMINICA, Feb 24 2025 (IPS)

CARICOM leaders wrapped up a crucial meeting on February 21, reaffirming their commitment to tackling pressing regional challenges with unity and resolve. From crime and security to education, trade and climate change, the leaders highlighted the need for decisive action amid global uncertainties.

Education Transformation

Barbados’ Prime Minister and CARICOM Chair Mia Mottley told the press that the leaders agreed to establish a CARICOM Educational Transformation Commission—a body that will move the region’s education systems beyond outdated foundations.

“We all accept that our educational systems are not fit for purpose. They were designed for a colonial period with a hierarchical system that only served a few, not all of our people. If we are to be able to ensure that we produce citizens fit for the time, with the appropriate social and emotional learning targets, we must move now,” she stated.

Over the coming weeks, the commission’s Terms of Reference and composition will be finalized, marking a major step in reshaping regional education policies.

Violence and Crime: Existential Threats

Outgoing Trinidadian Prime Minister Dr. Keith Rowley, attending his final CARICOM Heads of Government meeting, highlighted the increasing crime surge across the region, particularly the rise of gang violence in some countries.

Trinidad is still in a state of emergency over surging crime levels.

“We agreed that the changing nature of crime is such that action and acts of violence in the public space in certain instances must now be regarded as acts of terrorism. We are talking here about indiscriminate shooting in a public place where perpetrators endanger all and sundry.”

The leaders endorsed the classification of crime and violence as a public health issue and committed to appointing a high-level representative on law and criminal justice to design a strategic plan for modernizing the region’s criminal justice system.

Critical Climate Change Concerns

Another existential threat that leaders are grappling with is climate change.

Representing small island states that contribute minimally to global emissions but face disproportionate vulnerability to its impacts, the CARICOM leaders voiced their frustration with unmet promises by major polluters.

The USD 100 billion climate fund promised in 2015 remains unfulfilled, leaving these nations without critical support.

“For several years we attempted to see how we could shake up those who are pledging and committing to live up to their pledges and commitments. They decided to come up with a new regime called the New Collective Quantified Goal,” said Bahamian Prime MInister Philip Davis, adding, “All I can say is that we should continue our advocacy to ensure that not only is finance available to small island developing states but also to ensure that there will be easier access and timely release of funds once a request is made.”

A Changing Trading Environment

Meanwhile, Jamaican Prime Minister Andrew Holness addressed concerns over shifts in United States trade policy and their potential impact on regional economies.

“We must be prepared. We cannot approach this with panic and we should accept that with these changes the concern should not only be disruption in the normal routine of trade, but that there could also be great opportunities for the region.”

Holness announced that CARICOM will conduct a comprehensive review of its trade relations with the U.S., aiming to deliver a policy direction within the next few months to support regional governments.

Mounting Food Security Worries

Guyanese President Irfaan Ali warned of escalating food security issues due to rising global food prices, bird flu outbreak and increased logistics costs. The region faces a 20% decline in U.S. egg production, leading to a 70% price hike, adding further strain.

“Increased climate-related challenges, increased transportation and logistics costs, and uncertainty in tariffs and trade rules will have a significant impact on the cost of food globally and in our region,” Ali stated.

Ali said that if Brazil is affected by these challenges, it could lead to major problems with pricing and supply for the region. In response, CARICOM is exploring alternative supply routes and strategies to enhance regional capacity against a potential major shock in the global market.

The Dream of Stability—and Elections—in Haiti

The crisis in Haiti remained a focal point of discussions. Prime Minister Mottley reaffirmed CARICOM’s dedication to stabilizing the nation.

“This last incarnation of the Haiti situation goes back to the gas riots of September 2022. It has been an unacceptably long period of time to bring stability and relief to the people of Haiti. You will appreciate that there are some matters that are delicate at the discussion stages, but suffice it to say CARICOM expresses solidarity with the government and people of Haiti that we will work with the United Nations and all of the other friends of Haiti to be able to ensure that Haiti is in a position to have its elections in a fair and free way.”

Martinique’s Potential Associate Membership

In a historic move, CARICOM leaders signed an agreement with France and Martinique, paving the way for the French territory to become the newest associate member of CARICOM, pending ratification by the French government. If approved, Martinique will join Anguilla, Bermuda, the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, Montserrat and the Turks and Caicos Islands in this capacity.

The way forward

The meeting concluded with a renewed commitment to collective action and regional unity.

Like she did two days before at the meeting’s opening ceremony, the CARICOM Chair underscored the importance of a united CARICOM taking action towards a sustainable future.

“Now, more than ever, unity is crucial for overcoming the shared challenges posed by the world,” Prime Minister Mottley said.

IPS UN Bureau Report

 

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

• Food, Water, Crime, Climate Change: CARICOM Leaders Begin 48th Conference with Commitment to Joint Action on Critical, Common Concerns
• COP 29: High Stakes for Small Islands Fighting for Climate Finance
• The Crucial Connection Between Climate Change and Mental Health

Excerpt:

Leaders of the 15 member states of the Caribbean Community concluded their 48th meeting on February 21 with commitments to tackle growing climate change and food security challenges, education and trade reform, while declaring crime and violence a public health concern.

A model for multilateralism, Antarctica is bound by the Antarctic Treaty consisting of 57 nations devoted to peace and science. It is also the largest freshwater reservoir on our planet. Antarctica doesn't have a capital city because it's a continent, not a country. Credit: UNDP/Raja Venkatapathy

By Raja Venkatapathy Mani
ANTARCTICA, Feb 24 2025 (IPS)

It was 7:30 a.m. I got ready the fastest I could, adrenaline kicking in, curiosity and excitement peaking. I rushed out of my cabin, opened the big exit door, and there in front of me was the first visual of the majestic white continent – Antarctica.

It may not be the first thing that comes to mind when we think of the climate crisis, but this frozen ecosystem is experiencing some of the most dramatic consequences from global heating.

The United Nations has declared 2025 the International Year of Glaciers’ Preservation to highlight the critical role glaciers, snow and ice play in the climate system as well as the far-reaching impacts of rapid glacier melting.

Antarctica is the coldest, driest and windiest place in the world. When you set foot on land, it feels like stepping onto a frozen wonderland unlike anything else. Imagine standing on ice sheets as thick as 4 kilometres, feeling the chill of the wind flowing from the Polar Plateau. Holding 90 percent of the world’s surface freshwater, Antarctica is the largest freshwater reservoir on our planet, a frozen lifeline at the bottom of the world.

Apart from scientists who live in research stations, there are no permanent humans or human settlements. With average temperature around -50°C to -60°C in the winter, the harsh conditions make survival extremely difficult.

After spending a week in Antarctica, here’s what I learned about Earth’s last great wilderness.

Antarctica is the coldest, driest and windiest place in the world. Credit: UNDP/Raja Venkatapathy

Critical habitat for rare wildlife

It’s not just the captivating landscapes. Antarctica is home to a range of extraordinary wildlife that live here in these challenging conditions. It is a place where nature’s wonders come to life in the most extreme conditions.

The penguins waddling on their highways, seals lounging on the icy shores and majestic whales diving in the icy waters are all part of a thriving ecosystem. These creatures and many others migrate to Antarctica to feast on krill, tiny sea creatures that are found in the nutrient-rich waters.

Wildlife such as penguins rely on the ice for breeding, with their colonies found across the region. Ice also serves as a feeding ground, a place for regulating body temperatures while providing resting and moulting grounds for birds.

The continent is also the world’s largest natural laboratory, where ground-breaking research is being undertaken on climate change, geology, ecology and biodiversity. This helps us to understand the earth systems including how it might have looked millions of years ago, analyse current changes, and predict and prepare for potential future changes.

Antarctica is carbon negative, which means it absorbs more carbon than it produces. However global emissions threaten its balance. The weather patterns here are quite erratic. On one day, it was so warm that I had to remove multiple layers of clothing. As someone who had only heard about the extreme cold, I never imagined that I would experience one of the warmest days ever in the coldest place on Earth.

Despite being so remote from human interaction, Antarctica faces one of the greatest threats from climate change. The 2023 State of the Global Climate report revealed that Antarctic sea ice loss is accelerating in dangerous ways. And glaciers likely lost more ice than ever before in 2023, which will have dramatic consequences for all of us no matter where we live.

Credit: UNDP/Raja Venkatapathy

What happens in Antarctica doesn’t stay in Antarctica

Antarctica’s gigantic ice sheets reflect a significant amount of sunlight back into space, which helps keep our planet cool. But the coldest place on the planet is today one of the fastest-warming regions. Even small increases in temperature can have significant effects on its ice sheets, glaciers and ecosystems.

More than 40 percent of Antarctica’s ice shelves have shrunk in the past 25 years. Warmer temperatures contribute to the melting of ice shelves that could lead to sea level rise affecting small island nations and coastal communities.

Antarctica’s cold waters play a crucial role in driving ocean currents, including the Antarctic Circumpolar Current, a powerful ocean current that flows clockwise around Antarctica, connecting the world’s major seas. The warming of the ocean will alter these currents, which help to determine global weather patterns, impacting fisheries, agriculture and climate systems.

Declining ice will also mean habitat loss for Antarctica’s wildlife, which will affect their breeding and survival. This will disrupt the ocean’s food chain, affecting fish stocks that people rely on for food and jobs. Additionally, penguins play a role in storing carbon, so their decline will contribute to accelerating climate change, and in turn to more extreme weather events worldwide.

Basically, what happens in Antarctica doesn’t stay in Antarctica; the impacts will be felt worldwide.

As I stood on the glacier learning about the ice dating back millions of years, the history of the place reminded me that our time as humans is very limited, but the planet lives on. It is our responsibility, and it is only fair, that we leave the Earth how we inherited from our ancestors – if not better.

A model for multilateralism

Geographically, geologically, biologically and politically, Antarctica is a unique place. Nobody owns Antarctica; it is bound by the Antarctic Treaty consisting of 57 nations devoted to peace and science. It is one of the finest showcases of why international cooperation is essential. All the countries work here together for the cause of science and for the common good of our beautiful planet.

The discovery of a hole in the ozone layer over Antarctica galvanized global concern and action. Imagine the ozone layer as a filter that blocks harmful ultraviolet radiation, which could potentially increase the prevalence of skin cancer and cataracts, reduce agricultural productivity and threaten marine ecosystems.

When nations came together to address this concern, it led to the adoption of the Montreal Protocol, a global agreement to protect the ozone layer by phasing out ozone-depleting substances that were commonly used in products such as refrigerators, air conditioners, fire extinguishers and aerosols. UNEP data finds that we are now on the path to recovery, with the ozone layer expected to heal by 2066.

This success story is an important lesson of what countries can do when they work together to confront a global crisis. The story of Antarctica is a reminder that we are yet again being put to test with the growing climate crisis. It is the defining challenge humanity faces, and what we do and don’t do will determine our future.

Now more than ever we have to join together and work as one team to end our reliance on fossil fuels, reduce our emissions and limit global average temperature rise to 1.5°C.

As I stood on the glacier learning about the ice dating back millions of years, the history of the place reminded me that our time as humans is very limited, but the planet lives on. It is our responsibility, and it is only fair, that we leave the Earth how we inherited from our ancestors – if not better.

Raja Venkatapathy Mani is Digital Communications Analyst, UN Development Programme (UNDP)

IPS UN Bureau

 

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

Credit: United Nations

By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Feb 24 2025 (IPS)

The UN’s human rights agenda is in danger of faltering since the Geneva-based Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (UNHCHR) is planning to “restructure” the office, under the moniker OHCHR 2.0.

But this proposal, if implemented, would result in the abolition of the Special Procedures Branch, established by the Human Rights Council (HRC), to report and advise on human rights from thematic and country-specific perspectives.

The question remains whether or not the HRC will give its blessings to the proposed restructuring. Currently, there are more than 46 thematic mandates and 14 country-specific mandates.

The Special Rapporteurs (who are also designated “independent UN human rights experts”) cover a wide range of thematic issues, including investigations into extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, racism and xenophobia, human rights in the Palestinian territories, right to freedom of opinion and expression, rights of the indigenous peoples, violence against women, human rights of immigrants, among others.

https://www.ohchr.org/en/special-procedures-human-rights-council/current-and-former-mandate-holders-existing-mandates

Ian Richards, an economist at the Geneva-based UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) and former President of the Coordinating Committee of International Staff Unions and Associations, told IPS the staff of the Special Procedures Branch play an essential role in supporting the work of the special rapporteurs.

He said former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan described their work as the jewel in the crown of the UN human rights system.

“We know that some of their recent work has created pushback. There is a belief is that they are being penalized for this”.

“The High Commissioner for Human Rights “hasn’t accepted to meet with the staff union to discuss this, which is unusual. We hope he will change his mind,” said Richards.

Some of the Special Rapporteurs have been vociferously critical of member states, including Israel, on war crimes charges in Gaza, and also countries in the Middle East and South-east Asia, like Singapore and Saudi Arabia, for continuing to enforce the death penalty.

In a press release last week, two Special Rapporteurs said Singapore must urgently halt the execution of Malaysian national Pannir Selvam Pranthaman for drug trafficking.

“We have repeatedly** called on Singapore to halt executions for drug offences which are illegal under international human rights law on several grounds,” the experts said.

“We reiterate that under international law, only crimes of extreme gravity involving intentional killing meet the threshold for the death penalty,” the experts said. “Mandatory death sentences are inherently over-inclusive and inevitably violate human rights law.”

“There is no evidence that the death penalty does more than any other punishment to curb or prevent drug trafficking,” they said.

The experts warned that the rate of execution notices for drug-related offences in Singapore was “highly alarming”. They noted that eight people have already been executed on these charges since 1 October 2024, a period of just four and a half months.

Speaking off-the-record, a UN source told IPS the staff of the Special Procedures Branch fear the “re-structuring” is being done in order to reduce the effectiveness and voice of the Special Rapporteurs. And the High Commissioner’s refusal to consult with the union may be evidence of this, he said.

“As you may be aware, the special rapporteurs, and one in particular, have been vocal on the issue of Gaza, which has generated complaints from a number of member states to the High Commissioner. To seek a second term, he needs their support”.

According to the UN, Special Rapporteurs/Independent Experts/Working Groups are independent human rights experts appointed by the United Nations Human Rights Council. Together, these experts are referred to as the Special Procedures of the Human Rights Council.

Special Procedures experts work on a voluntary basis; they are not UN staff and do not receive a salary for their work. While the UN Human Rights office acts as the secretariat for Special Procedures, the experts serve in their individual capacity and are independent from any government or organization, including OHCHR and the UN.

Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent those of the UN or OHCHR. Country-specific observations and recommendations by the UN human rights mechanisms, including the special procedures, the treaty bodies and the Universal Periodic Review, can be found on the Universal Human Rights Index https://uhri.ohchr.org/en/

The Office of the High Commissioner is being funded by the UN regular budget and voluntary contributions.

But UN Special Rapporteurs are not paid a salary by the United Nations. They receive funding primarily through logistical and personnel support from the Office of the High Commissioner.

They often also receive additional funding from private foundations and NGOs like the Ford Foundation and Open Society Foundations, which can raise concerns about potential conflicts of interest due to the source of funding.

Special procedures cover all human rights: civil, cultural, economic, political and social as well as issues relating to specific groups. Special procedures mandate-holders are either an individual (called a Special Rapporteur (SR) or Independent Expert (IE)) or a Working Group (WG) of five members, according to the UN.

As part of their mandates, special procedures examine, advise and publicly report on human rights issues and situations. They conduct thematic studies and convene expert consultations, contribute to the development of international human rights standards, engage in advocacy and provide advice for technical cooperation.

Upon the invitation from Governments, they visit particular countries or territories in order to monitor the situation on the ground. Special procedures also act on individual cases and concerns of a broader, structural nature by sending communications to States and other entities in which they bring alleged violations or abuses to their attention.

Finally, they raise public awareness of a specific topic through press releases or other public statements. Special procedures report annually to the Human Rights Council; the majority of the mandates also report annually to the General Assembly

In 2024, OHCHR received a total of US$268.9 million in voluntary contributions. As in previous years, the overwhelming majority of voluntary contributions came from Member States and International organizations including the European Commission and UN partners.

IPS UN Bureau Report

 

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

UN Secretary-General António Guterres (left and on screen) addresses the high-level Humanitarian Conference for the People of Sudan, in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Credit: UN Photo/Addis Ababa

By Oritro Karim
UNITED NATIONS, Feb 21 2025 (IPS)

In the final quarter of 2024 ,there has been an escalation in the Sudanese civil war, with armed clashes between the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) and the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) having grown in brutality. Heightened insecurity has pushed millions of people into displacement, hunger, and poverty. Additionally, the continued hostilities have made it difficult for humanitarian organizations to scale their responses up.

The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) issued a report on February 20, that analyzed trends in the displacement and violence in the second, third, and fourth quarters of 2024. The fourth quarter was a relatively tumultuous period for the Sudanese people. Extensive artillery shelling in the Zamzam displacement camp of North Darfur has significantly exacerbated the displacement crisis and prevented displaced persons from seeking safer shelter.

UNHCR has classified Sudan as the world’s biggest displacement crisis, with over 11.5 million internally displaced persons since the start of the Sudanese civil war in 2023. The Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) has stated that approximately two-thirds of the population are critically dependent on humanitarian aid for survival. Additionally, internally displaced persons face famine-like conditions and neighboring countries face a lack of resources to provide for the externally displaced.

From June to mid-October 2024, clashes between armed groups in the Sennar and Al Jazeera states greatly boosted internal displacements, with UNHCR estimating that humanitarian organizations had to cater to almost 400,000 newly displaced civilians. In the Darfur and Blue Nile regions, agricultural communities experienced attacks which resulted in significant damage to crop production and a rise in sexual and gender-based violence.

According to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), the use of sexual violence as a weapon of war has increased greatly in the past year. There have been 120 documented cases of sexual violence and at least 203 victims. The true number of victims is estimated to be much higher due to fear of reprisals, stigma, and a lack of protection, medical, and judicial services for victims.

In January, then-U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken declared that the recent violations of humanitarian law committed by the RSF constitute as acts of genocide. The United Arab Emirates (UAE) has been accused of supplying the RSF with weapons, which they denied. The United Nations (UN) has still not issued an extension for the unenforced arms embargo in Darfur.

On February 18, the RSF conducted a series of attacks over the course of three days in the al-Kadaris and al-Khelwat areas, which have little to no military presence. The Sudanese Foreign Ministry estimates that there have been at least 433 civilian casualties. There have also been reports of the RSF committing executions, kidnappings, enforced disappearances and lootings.

The attacks were concurrent with the RSF and its allies arriving in the capital of Kenya to sign a charter for a parallel government in the RSF’s controlled territories. The SAF rejected this proposal and indicated plans to reclaim the entirety of Khartoum.

“The continued and deliberate attacks on civilians and civilian objects, as well as summary executions, sexual violence and other violations and abuses, underscore the utter failure by both parties to respect the rules and principles of international humanitarian and human rights law. Some of these acts may amount to war crimes,” said Volker Türk, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.

Tom Fletcher, the UN Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator, adds that the Sudanese Civil War has implications that reach beyond the borders of Sudan, “threatening to destabilize neighbors in ways that risk being felt for generations to come”.

Millions of people in Sudan have been left without access to critical resources, such as food, clean water, shelter, and healthcare.

“People who were already very vulnerable have no access to food or water. Some of them have no shelter, as some neighbourhoods have been burned down, and it’s very cold at night,” Michel-Olivier Lacharite, of Doctors Without Borders (MSF) informed reporters. Lacharite added that after the RSF’s attacks on the Zamzam camp in early February, dozens of severely injured civilians don’t have access to treatment due to limited surgical capabilities in the MSF Zamzam hospital.

According to figures from MSF, approximately 24.6 million people, or roughly half of Sudan’s population, face high levels of acute food insecurity. 8.5 million of these people also face “emergency or famine-like” conditions, according to the latest Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC) report. The IPC has detected the presence of famine in five areas, including the Zamzam, Abu Shouk and Al Salam camps in North Darfur, and two additional locations in the Western Nuba Mountains.

“There are reports of people dying of starvation in some areas like Darfur, Kordofan and Khartoum…People in Zamzam camp, which as you know — as we’ve told you — had been regularly bombed, are resorting to extreme measures to survive because food is so scarce. Families are eating peanut shells mixed with oil which is typically used to feed animals,” said Stéphane Dujarric, the Spokesperson for the UN Secretary-General.

Despite the urgent scale of needs, the humanitarian response in Sudan has been largely ineffective. According to MSF, heightened insecurity in the most crisis-affected areas has impeded aid deliveries. Additionally, MSF has blamed the UN for employing “neglectful inertia”, which has done little to alleviate the growing malnutrition crisis.

“Parts of Sudan are difficult to work in. But it is certainly possible, and this is what humanitarian organisations and the UN are supposed to do,” said Marcella Kraay, MSF emergency coordinator in Nyala, South Darfur. “In places that are easier to access, as well as in the hardest to reach areas like North Darfur, options like air routes remain unexplored. The failure to act is a choice, and it’s killing people.”

IPS UN Bureau Report

 

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

The REGROW project, aimed at doubling the size of Ruaha National Park, has left many without land and prospects. Credit: Kizito Makoye/IPS

By Kizito Makoye
MBARALI, Tanzania, Feb 21 2025 (IPS)

A hush had fallen over Mbarali District, but it was not the quiet of peace—it was the silence of uncertainty.

Just months ago, the rolling plains were gripped by fear as government-backed rangers, dressed in olive green fatigues, roamed through villages, seizing cattle, torching homes, and forcing entire communities to the wobbly edge of survival. The REGROW project, a USD 150 million initiative funded by the World Bank to expand Ruaha National Park (RUNAPA), had promised tourism growth and environmental conservation. What it delivered was a brutal campaign of state-sanctioned land grabbing under the guise of protecting nature.

Then, in a stunning turn of events, the World Bank pulled the plug on the project in January 2025 after intense scrutiny from human rights watchdogs and the United Nations. On paper, it was a victory for the thousands of farmers and pastoralists whose lands were threatened. But for many, the damage had already been done.

A Victory Hollowed by Loss

“We lost everything,” said Daudi Mkwama, a rice farmer who watched helplessly as rangers confiscated his cattle and demolished his storehouse. “They told us we were trespassers on land our ancestors have farmed for generations.”

The REGROW project aimed to double the size of Ruaha National Park, claiming vast swaths of farmland and grazing land in the process. Villages that had coexisted with nature for centuries suddenly found themselves labeled as threats to conservation. The government, backed by international funding, deployed heavily armed TANAPA (Tanzania National Parks Authority) rangers to enforce new restrictions.

At least 28 villages in Mbarali District were affected, home to more than 84,000 people. Farmers were barred from their fields, and pastoralists were banned from grazing their livestock. Those who resisted faced brutal crackdowns. Reports of beatings, arbitrary arrests, and even extrajudicial killings surfaced, prompting an investigation by the World Bank’s Inspection Panel.

“One day, they came and took my cows—said I was grazing in a protected area,” said Juma Mseto, a Maasai herder. “We begged them to let us go. They just laughed and told us to go to hell.”

The Politics of Land and Power

Tanzania’s conservation model has long been marred by controversy. Despite its reputation as a wildlife haven, the country’s protected areas have historically come at a high human cost. The eviction of Indigenous communities has been a recurring pattern, from Ngorongoro to Loliondo, and now Mbarali.

The REGROW project was touted as a necessary step to protect Tanzania’s natural heritage and boost its tourism industry, a sector that contributes nearly 17% of the country’s GDP of approximately US$80 billion. But critics argue it was another case of conservation being weaponized against marginalized communities.

“This wasn’t about protecting nature,” said Onesmo Ole Ngurumwa, a human rights advocate who serves as the national coordinator of the Tanzania Human Rights Defenders Coalition (THRDC). “This was about expanding state control over land, profiting from tourism, and sidelining the people who have lived in harmony with these ecosystems for generations.”

The World Bank’s involvement only deepened the controversy. When evidence of forced evictions and human rights abuses surfaced, the institution initially turned a blind eye. But mounting pressure from advocacy groups like the Oakland Institute, along with intervention from nine UN Special Rapporteurs, forced the bank’s hand.

In April 2024, funding was suspended. Seven months later, the entire project was scrapped.

Life After the Cancellation

Despite the decision, villagers say their suffering is far from over. Many who lost their homes and livelihoods have received no compensation. Schools remain closed, water access is scarce, and government beacons still mark the lands they were once told to vacate.

“We are still living in fear,” said Halima Mtemba, a mother of four. “They say the project is over, but will they return our cattle? Will they fix our schools? Will they give us back what they stole?”

Local leaders are calling for the removal of park boundary markers and official recognition of ancestral land rights. They also demand restitution for lost livestock, crops, and homes.

A Broader Pattern of Displacement

The battle over Mbarali is not an isolated incident. Across Tanzania, conservation projects continue to displace communities under the pretext of environmental protection.

In Ngorongoro, thousands of Maasai have been forced out to make way for elite tourism ventures. In Loliondo, violent evictions have turned vast grazing lands into private hunting concessions.

“The government has made it clear: it values animals over people,” said Maneno Kwayu, a pastoralist leader in Mbarali. “We are not against conservation. We are against being treated like intruders on our own land.”

Tanzania’s conservation policies are rooted in colonial-era frameworks that prioritized wildlife tourism over Indigenous land rights. Decades later, the same patterns persist, often with the backing of global financial institutions.

What Comes Next?

With the REGROW project dead, the focus now shifts to reparations. Human rights groups are pushing for an independent commission to oversee compensation and ensure the affected communities receive justice.

But there is little trust in the system.

“The World Bank may have walked away, but the government hasn’t,” said Ole Ngurumwa. “Until there are real legal protections for these communities, another project like this will happen again.”

For now, the people of Mbarali continue to live in limbo—celebrating a victory that came too late, in a battle they should never have had to fight.

IPS UN Bureau Report

 

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

• Tanzanians with HIV Left in Crisis as USAID Funding Ends
• Pemba’s Woman Salt Farmers Forge Livelihoods Amid Climate Woes
• Tanzania’s Disaster Preparedness: A Nation on Edge

On 12 February 2023, UNA-UK launched Blue Smoke, a newsletter and website shining a light on senior UN appointments and elections.

By Mavic Cabrera Balleza, Ben Donaldson and Anne Marie Goetz
NEW YORK, Feb 21 2025 (IPS)

The selection of the next UN Secretary-General (UNSG) will be a pivotal moment in global efforts to resist authoritarianism and work together to address shared problems. Where do UN Member States stand on appointing a feminist woman to this role?

Informal campaigning is already underway for the position of the next UN Secretary-General. The race will officially kick off towards the end of the year; the successful candidate will take office on 1 January 2027. A decade ago, state after state stood up and said the next Secretary-General should be a woman. Then they voted for a man.

This time, civil society is not taking good intentions at face value, and wants concrete actions. The simplest way to break the 80-year old glass ceiling is if states commit publicly to only consider nominating women candidates – hardly a challenge given the plethora of talented leaders available.

The Accountability, Coherence and Transparency (ACT) coalition of 27 countries has included this issue to their list of key areas for revitalizing the UN’s effectiveness, insisting, last November: “We cannot miss the transformative opportunity to appoint the UN’s first woman SG.”

Civil society groups such as the 1 for 8 Billion coalition and the Global Network of Women Peacebuilders (GNWP) point out that the appointment won’t be ‘transformative’ unless the next SG is not just a woman but a feminist.

A recent study by the Global Network of Women Peacebuilders, 1 for 8 Billion, and students at the Center for Global Affairs, School of Professional Studies, New York University, showed that only three UN Member States – Costa Rica, Spain and Slovenia – have backed up their emphatic support for a woman SG with concrete reform proposals to bring gender equality to the SG selection process.

The study is based on analysis of Member State public statements at the UN, for instance at the General Assembly in September last year and the meeting of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Revitalization of the Work of the General Assembly last November.

Beyond individual country positions, the research analyzed joint statements by collectivities such as the Non-Aligned Movement, the ACT group, the European Union, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, and a group of 78 states coordinated by Mexico, Slovenia and Spain on the representation of women at UN leadership. Statements are assessed as ‘Very Strong’, ‘Strong’, ‘Indirect/Implied’, or ‘Opposed’.

Fifty states have indicated ‘Strong’ support, which means they have said that the next SG should be a woman, but they have not outlined specific actions to increase the chances of this outcome. Another 124 states have shown indirect support by saying that gender equality should be one of several considerations in the next selection round.

In the source material studied, not a single UN Member State has called explicitly for a feminist woman SG. Of the 15 countries that align with ‘feminist foreign policy’, only 5 – Canada, Chile, Spain, Slovenia and Germany – made a point of mentioning the importance of selecting a woman SG during the opening of the 79th General Assembly in September.

A lone woman leader will not be able to fix what ails the UN. To call for a feminist woman SG is to invoke the broader changes that the next SG must be empowered by Member States and work together to undertake. Gender equality has been proven to be an accelerator of all UN priorities, including the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

However, there is a serious attack on feminist thinking and activism by autocratic populists and religious fundamentalists. From Project 2025 to the edicts of the Taliban, weaponized misogyny – or the ‘gender ideology backlash’, as well as attacks on diversity, equity and inclusion – are used to revive antique versions of patriarchal control and eliminate opposition to unbridled militarization.

This makes the centering of gender equality by the first Madam Secretary-General imperative both substantively and symbolically.

Beyond calling for feminist women candidates with reform agendas, there are calls for an open selection process to enable candidates to build a broad support base for their visions. Carrying this support through to the 38th floor once in role will be vital, as the first Madam Secretary-General will need to work creatively to get things done in the current environment, reaching beyond Member States to connect directly with civil society and the global public.

Without a powerful mandate to lead, the first woman SG will be set up for failure, appointed to the edge of a glass cliff as polarization in geopolitics splinters the organization.

Doors are closing fast to opportunities to democratize the selection process and to ensure that a woman is selected. 1 for 8 Billion has set out feasible moves to support an inclusive and fair process. The General Assembly has the chance over the next few months to implement this agenda, when all states get a platform to publicly comment on the SG selection process at the meeting of the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Revitalization of the General Assembly.

The research mentioned above will be available on an Interactive Map tracking UN Member States’ positions on the appointment of a feminist woman SG. This will be launched on March 5th. GNWP’s website to register for the event.

Mavic Cabrera Ballez is Founder and Chief Executive Officer, Global Network of Women Peacebuilders; Ben Donaldson is Advisor, 1 for 8 Billion campaign; Anne Marie Goetz is Clinical Professor, Center for Global Affairs, School of Professional Studies, New York University

Source: UN Association of the UK

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 Yasmine Sherif
NEW YORK, Feb 20 2025 (IPS-Partners)

The central theme of this year’s World Day of Social Justice is to “strengthen a just transition for a sustainable future.” Education is the very foundation for achieving social justice. Without an education we cannot end extreme poverty and advance economic growth. Without an education we cannot empower young girls to become teachers, doctors, nurses, lawyers, engineers, let alone financially self-reliant. Without an education we cannot achieve good governance, the rule of law and peaceful co-existence.

Social justice in all its forms requires education, be it formal education through grade 12, onto tertiary education, or vocational skills training. There is simply no other way. Education is the path to social justice. As a global community, we are all interconnected and it is thus in our interest to ensure that children worldwide benefit from an education. However, nearly a quarter of a billion children living on the frontlines of the world’s most devastating humanitarian crises do not access a quality education. This will not bode well for them, nor for us.

This global education crisis will have vast impacts on our global society, and our quest for social justice. I think of the brave women of the Afghan Girls Robotics Team, including our own ECW Global Champion Somaya Faruqi, who broke gender norms on their quest to learn more about science, technology, engineering and math. Coming out next month, their story will be told in the inspiring movie Rule Breakers. But, much more needs to be done. Social justice does not exist for the women and girls of Afghanistan today, nor in many other parts of the world torn apart by brutal conflicts, forced displacement, climate change or oppressive societal norms.

Since ECW was founded just a few years ago, this global fund for education in emergencies and protracted crises, together with all our strategic donor partners and implementing partners, have reached a total of 11.4 million children with quality education. With increased funding support, we can provide millions more with access to quality education, and contribute to social justice.

The provision of a quality education fit for the 21st Century is the single best investment we can make to empower children and youth, create stronger economies, and ensure a peaceful co-existence in the world. There is no other promise, and no other pathway that can substitute education as the safest road to social justice.

 

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');  

Wrongfully accused of 'causing droughts,’ a group of LGBTQI people in Zimbabwe involved themselves in climate-smart agriculture and are now showing the way to mitigate climate change in a country recently devastated by El Niño-induced drought.

Scientists must step up and speak up. We cannot be silent when science is being eroded and the institutions that fund science are being dismantled, and emerging and early career researchers being terminated. Credit: Bigstock

By Esther Ngumbi
URBANA, Illinois, US, Feb 20 2025 (IPS)

Scientists like me across the U.S. are distressed following the many policy changes, funding elimination, and firings that have happened since President Trump took office. More than ever, scientists must unite in solidarity and share the negative impact these extreme measures will have on science, U.S. science funding agencies and people’s lives. Speaking up can take many forms, from posting your thoughts on social media to writing opinion pieces or op-eds.

For the latter, op-eds can be an effective way for scientists to communicate urgent messages of today, including talking about the importance of their fields and why federal agencies must keep functioning.

Scientists can write about the dangers of the presidential office interfering with important research grants and urge the government to reconsider the decision to terminate many early career scientists. By writing op-eds, scientists can also paint a picture for the public and government leaders about the dire consequences of dismantling USAID.

Op-eds can be an effective way for scientists to communicate urgent messages of today, including talking about the importance of their fields and why federal agencies must keep functioning

To many scientists who are used to academic writing, crafting an op-ed may seem like an insurmountable task. Ten years ago, when I became an Aspen Institute New Voices fellow, I felt that way.

To date, I have written over 150 op-ed pieces and covered multiple issues and topics that I was passionate about, including promoting diversity, the need for scientists to communicate, climate change and tackling food insecurity. My op-eds have led to outcomes like being invited to testify before a U.S. Congress Subcommittee Hearing.

This is my advice to scientists who want to capitalize on the power of op-eds to share how recent events are impacting them.

The first step is to determine the problem or issue to which you want to call attention. Other guiding prompts to help you focus on determining the problem is to ask a series of questions including why this topic is important, why is it timely now, what do you want the reader to do or learn (the call to action), and lastly, how will things change if you call to action happens.

Once you have clearly identified an issue, then it is important to organize your thoughts around the recognized structure of op-eds. This includes the lede/idea, main argument or thesis supported by evidence, “to be sure” statement and a conclusion paragraph, with a clearly articulated call to action.

The first element of an op-ed is the lede/idea, that is centered around a news hook, or personal anecdotes that tie on to something happening in the news. A news hook ties your argument to the current issues of the day while showing how timely your voice and argument is and why it matters now. Tying your op-ed around a news hook also lets editors know in your pitch what is new and timely about your piece before they decide to accept it.

Next after the lede or opening paragraph is your argument paragraph and main thesis.  Op-eds are centered around an argument; thus, you must decide on this before you write the rest of your piece.

The core argument or main thesis should be short and articulated in a clear way that is convincing to your readers. As you work to create an argument, think about: what you want to share with the world, is it new, what is new about it? How is it different from other arguments that have been made before?

Next, you will need to build evidence to support your argument. For many op-eds, at least three main points of evidence will suffice. The pieces of evidence can include statistics, anecdotes and personal stories, quotes from experts, news stories, and data from published research studies or reports. Provide source links for your evidence.

The “to be sure” paragraph is an important part of an opinion piece. This is the section where you preempt people who may discount your argument by acknowledging their viewpoint and then bringing in more evidence to back your argument. Essentially, in this section, you can acknowledge other counter arguments while supporting your own argument.

The final concluding paragraph is the place where you summarize all the previous paragraphs with thought-provoking messages and punchlines. This is also where you can embed your call to action. What do you want your readers to do? What needs to happen?

Op-eds, unlike other academic writing, are short, therefore remember to adhere to the word limits of the outlet you are hoping to pitch to. For many outlets, the word limit ranges from 500 to 900 words.

Once you are done, re-read for clarity and then your piece is ready to pitch.

Of course, I acknowledge that scientists and other people being impacted may be scared to write, for fear of retribution or being fired.  It is genuine fear because the internet never forgets. Before embarking on writing an Op-Ed, scientists should definitely weigh in on the positives and negatives  and the short and long-term impacts that may come about with penning down a piece.

Scientists must step up and speak up. We cannot be silent when science is being eroded and the institutions that fund science are being dismantled, and emerging and early career researchers being terminated. Time is now.

Esther Ngumbi, PhD is Assistant Professor, Department of Entomology, African American Studies Department, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

The United Nations’ 2024 Summit of the Future Interactive Dialogue on Strengthening Inclusive Innovation and Bridging Digital Divides. Credit: UN Photo/Laura Jarriel

By Oritro Karim
UNITED NATIONS, Feb 20 2025 (IPS)

In the western world, numerous studies over the past two decades have shown that the rise of social media in popularity has been linked to negative mental health symptoms, especially among young people. Platforms such as Instagram, Facebook, X (formerly known as Twitter), and TikTok have been criticized for fostering competitive and toxic environments, which contribute to higher rates of anxiety, cyber-bullying, depression, disordered eating, and low self-esteem. While the use of social media in the Global South has skyrocketed in the late 2010s, the ramifications on people in those regions has received much less coverage in mainstream media.

As of 2024, approximately 5.2 billion people around the world use social media, which is over 63 percent of the global population. This marks a significant increase from the number of global social media users in 2015, with just over 2 billion people.

The rise in popularity of social media in the Global South has been attributed to relatively rapid growths in development, particularly in Asian and African countries. Technological advancements and socio-economic progress has facilitated the rise of social media platforms and increased connectivity.

It is estimated that roughly 60 percent of the world’s social media users are in the Global South. However, studies on trends in psychological well-being in these areas in relation to social media usage is extremely limited as the vast majority of research focuses on the Global North.

Pew Research Center conducted a study in 2024 in which populations from eight countries in the Global South were surveyed on their social media habits. Around 73 percent of the sample population use WhatsApp and 62 percent use Facebook, with fewer people using TikTok (36 percent) and Instagram (29 percent). Additionally, there were higher rates of social media usage among younger people, more educated people, and those with higher incomes.

According to a 2021 report written by Zahra Takhshid and published by Vanderbilt University, titled Regulating Social Media in the Global South, policy makers in the Global South have found it difficult to establish regulations due to social media platforms being hubs for connection, commerce, self-expression, business, and political discourse. Additionally, social media platforms accumulate vast amounts of private data on a daily basis, which is an issue that the Global North has been fighting for the past two decades. However, much of the Global South lacks the proper infrastructures to protect users and regulate harmful content.

Many countries have responded to these concerns by restricting or banning the use of certain platforms, which has further blurred analytics on the psychological impact of digital technologies. In 2024, Access Now, a digital rights organization, reported internet or social media shutdowns in Kenya, Mozambique, Tanzania, Mauritius and Equatorial Guinea. These shutdowns usually coincided with pivotal events such as elections, when digital privacy is crucial.

According to Access Now, a nation that has issued restrictions on internet usage or certain platforms are more than likely to do it again. These shutdowns have dangerous implications for the citizens in these countries.

Felicia Anthonio, Access Now’s campaign manager, informed reporters that unfettered access to information, especially in times of crisis, are crucial. “It not only disrupts the flow of information, it also makes it impossible for people to access information in a timely manner. When we are talking about crisis situations, information can be like a lifeline, and disrupting access could be about life and death in conflict situations,” said Anthonio.

Additionally, blocking social media has extensive implications surrounding commerce. In Iran around 73.6 percent of adults use social media, with Meta-owned platforms like Facebook and Instagram having a large presence there, even as U.S. sanctions do not allow the platforms to run legally.

Instagram has fostered a budding online economy in Iran, with many small businesses having built successful brands due to the popularity of the platform. However, U.S. sanctions prevent Iranian users from seeing advertisements. Influencers replace advertisements in Iran, which has led to rampant misinformation being spread to consumers.

In the United States, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) mandates that all social media influencers must indicate if they were paid by a brand for online promotions. A similar mandate exists in the United Kingdom, known as the Advertising Standard Authority (ASA). However Iran, and several other countries in the Global South, lacks the legal frameworks to protect consumers from misinformation and brand manipulation from influencers. The lack of regulations has also exacerbated Iran’s gambling crisis.

There have also been reports of online misinformation in advertisements in Iran. According to the Vanderbilt University report, Instagram advertisements have contributed to higher rates of mental health issues surrounding body image as well as an overall increase in the nationwide desire for cosmetic procedures.

The Ministry of Health and Medical Education (MOHME) in Iran stated that certain advertisements that promote the efficacy of certain cosmetic treatments are prohibited and must be approved by the Iranian Medical Council. However, these posts remain frequent due to a lack of oversight from social media platforms and the governments in many countries in the Global South.

“There is increasing evidence that shows that increased exposure to social media is related to mental health problems, eating disorders and many other issues that condition and distract social media users, and particularly girls, from education which affects their academic achievement,” said senior policy analyst from the Global Education Monitor (GEM) report team Anna D’Addio.

Despite these conditions not being widely reported on in the Global South, it can be deduced that adolescents in these areas face similar challenges. Due to limited protections, young people in these regions are confronted with a vast array of harmful content that can promote unhealthy behaviors and stunt their personal progress.

IPS UN Bureau Report

 

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

The Arab League meeting room in Cairo. (Alyssa Bernstein/Flickr/CC BY-NC 2.0) Source: Jerusalem Center for Security and Foreign Affairs.

By Alon Ben-Meir
NEW YORK, Feb 20 2025 (IPS)

When the Arab states convene an emergency session in Egypt to address Trump’s/Netanyahu’s plans to take over Gaza and exile the Palestinians, they must warn Trump that acting on this plan will usher in a catastrophic conflagration that could engulf the entire Middle East.

Regardless of how geo-strategically important the relationship is between the Arab states and the US, the former must demonstrate unanimous resolve to oppose Trump’s and Netanyahu’s disastrous plans to take over Gaza and exile the Indigenous Palestinians.

Given Egypt’s desire to convey the urgency and the far-reaching implications of the Arab summit on March 4 in Cairo, it’s possible that both heads of state and foreign ministers will be in attendance.

They should make it clear that their countries will spare no effort or resources to prevent the US and Israel from acting in defiance of international laws, norms, and conduct, and that such violations will precipitate ominous geostrategic harm to both Israel and the US.

The partnership between the US and the Arab states has endured for many decades because it has mutually served their strategic, economic, and security interests. The Gulf states, Jordan, and Egypt in particular have provided strategic intelligence and air, naval, and ground military bases and ensured energy security.

Moreover, the US-Arab partnerships have been crucial over many years in coordinating and combating terrorism and violent extremism, stemming the spread of weapons of mass destruction, and promoting regional stability. All this led to maintaining American influence in the region and countering the growing presence of rival powers, especially Russia and China.

To be sure, the relationship has never been a one-way street. But leave it to Trump to throw his weight around as if the Arab states survive only at the mercy of the US’ charitable contributions. He ignores the fact that the regional geostrategic environment has dramatically changed over the past two decades.

The Arab states have choices, and the perception that they depend solely on the US for economic and military aid is mistaken. They can resist being pushed around should they choose to because they know their strength and indispensable role and importance to the US.

Moreover, the Arab states should understand Trump’s character: he is a bully and always tests the outer limits of his power. He bluffs, lies, and connives but is deterred only when sternly confronted and realizes that what he might lose outweighs any potential benefits.

Although he knows how implausible his brazen idea is to take over Gaza, he still tests the water on the remote chance that his opponents would cave in. At the first sign of Egypt and Jordan’s firm resistance to his barefaced idea, he walked back on his threat to withhold foreign aid if they didn’t agree to take in substantial numbers of Palestinians.

The fact that he ventured such an absurd idea –to take Arab land as if it were his property and to hell with its inhabitants – is extremely troubling. The Arab states should disabuse him of the notion that he can now or at any time in the future take any unilateral actions that have such a devastating effect on their national security interests.

The Arab League’s decision to convene an emergency session in Cairo is critical in and of itself in that it conveys an urgency to stop Trump in his tracks, unequivocally adopt actionable measures, demonstrate unanimity and resolve, and issue a stern warning.

Replace US aid to Jordan and Egypt

Although Trump previously floated the idea of cutting foreign aid to Egypt and Jordan if they refused to absorb Palestinians en masse, in his meeting last week with Jordan’s King Abdullah, Trump reversed his position, stating that “we contribute a lot of money to Jordan and Egypt by the way—a lot to both. But I don’t have to threaten that, I think we’re above that.”

Nevertheless, in the summit’s final communique, Arab states should announce that they are ready to make up for any aid lost should Trump act on his threat. The total annual aid the US provides to Egypt and Jordan is $3.2 billion, a drop in the bucket compared to the Gulf states’ foreign reserve funds, which is over $700 billion.

This will send a clear message to Trump that Egypt and Jordan do not exist at the mercy of the US, and his tactics of coercion are shameless and will not work.

Disrupting global oil supplies

The Gulf states have served US economic interests by ensuring stable oil supplies. Saudi Arabia, the largest oil producer, has been crucial in maintaining the free flow of oil to global markets and controlling oil production, which directly impacts the gasoline prices Americans pay at the pump.

Saudi Arabia can threaten to substantially reduce oil production, which would almost immediately raise gasoline prices. This would aggravate the inflationary trend in the US, which Trump wants badly to arrest.

Threaten to reconsider major arms deals

Although the Gulf states, Egypt, and Jordan are equipped with US military hardware, they can readily suspend further procurement of US weapons, which would translate to financial losses to US arms manufacturers.

Between 2018 and 2022, the US facilitated arms sales in the region to the tune of $35 billion, including $18 billion to Saudi Arabia, $6 billion to the UAE, $5 billion to Egypt, $3 billion to Kuwait, and $2 billion to Jordan. None of these countries are currently involved in military conflicts and can hold off on further procurements to make their position clear to Trump.

Sanctioning Israel

The first to salivate over Trump’s sickening idea of a Palestinian expulsion was Netanyahu and his fascist government. It is a dream come true. They praised Trump for his “ingenious” idea. For them, exiling Gaza’s population would not only allow Israel to resettle Gaza, but it would also open the door for annexing most of the West Bank and forcing countless Palestinians to leave, thereby realizing their dream of greater Israel.

The signatories to the Abraham Accords—the UAE, Bahrain, Sudan, and Morocco—should warn Israel that they will rescind the normalization of relations with Israel if they make any attempt to exile the Palestinians. Egypt and Jordan should recall their ambassadors from Israel and Saudi Arabia should reiterate that under no circumstances would it normalize relations with Israel.

Introducing UN Resolutions

Algeria, which is currently on the UNSC, should introduce a resolution to the UNSC to prohibit the US from removing the Palestinians from Gaza. Although the US will certainly veto it, the debate over Trump’s insane idea will further intensify international outrage.

From there, the Arab League should call on the UNGA to convene a vote on a similar resolution condemning Trump’s proposal. It is certain that, with the exceptions of the US and Israel, nearly every country will vote for it. Although UNGA resolutions are not binding, the message will not be lost, even on Trump.

In conjunction with the above measures, the Arab states must also advance their own plans for Gaza in the context of a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. By offering valid plans to reconstruct Gaza, they deprive Trump and Netanyahu of proceeding with their perilous plan.

Offer a comprehensive Arab-led reconstruction plan

Given the widespread destruction, the Arab states should agree to allocate an initial $20 billion for Gaza reconstruction, of the estimated $50-80 billion needed. The US, which aided Netanyahu in destroying Gaza, must also provide a substantial amount. The donor countries should invite other countries to bid for various projects, including the dire need for schools, healthcare clinics, and hospitals.

Establishing a Palestinian unity government

The Arab states must take whatever steps necessary to help establish a unity government between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority: one that accepts Israel’s right to exist, renounces violence, and is ready to negotiate peace based on a two-state solution. Although Israel vehemently rejects negotiating with a Palestinian government that includes Hamas, there will be no peace unless Hamas is an integral part of any new Palestinian government.

Netanyahu’s insistence that Hamas can be eradicated is an illusion. After 15 months of horrific losses and destruction, Hamas is still standing. Israel is negotiating with Hamas, albeit indirectly, and if it could not eradicate it in 15 months, it will not be able to eradicate it in 15 years. Hamas’s willingness to relinquish administrative responsibilities but remain a military force outside of the government will not be accepted by the Arab states and Israel.

Whether Hamas chooses to play a relevant role in a new government or not, it must disarm. Having successfully changed the dynamic of the conflict, however, and forced the Arab states to insist on a two-state solution, there is a good chance that Hamas will accept being a partner in any future Palestinian government and take credit for their historic achievement.

Participate in a Multinational Force

The Arab states should be prepared to participate in a multinational force to maintain security and ensure the complete demilitarization of Gaza. Jordan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia, which have a vested interest in finding a permanent solution, should lead a force that will include foreign countries, to be agreed upon by the US and these Arab states.

In conclusion, it is worth reminding ourselves that Hamas’ savagery and Israel’s retaliatory war have dramatically changed the very nature of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. All recent developments have demonstrated that it will be impossible to return to the conditions that existed before October 7, 2023.

Regardless of how insurmountable the difficulties that lay ahead, the Arab states have a unique historic opportunity to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict first by initiating and participating in a process of reconciliation between Israel and the Palestinians, culminating with a two-state solution with airtight security arrangements, involving Israel, the Palestinians, Jordan, and the US.

The world will be watching. Will the Arab states muster the courage and rise to the historic occasion when they convene on March 4 in Cairo, take charge, stop Trump and Netanyahu’s deadly and morally bankrupt idea of exiling the Palestinians from Gaza, reach a historic breakthrough, and avoid a looming catastrophe?

These are not ordinary times. Let this serve as a warning. If Trump and Netanyahu have it their way, they will destroy Israel as we know it and set the Middle East ablaze on an unprecedented scale.

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');  

Excerpt:

Dr. Alon Ben-Meir is a retired professor of international relations, most recently at the Center for Global Affairs at New York University. He taught courses on international negotiation and Middle Eastern studies.

Prime Minister of Barbados, CARICOM Chair Mia Mottley at the opening ceremony of the 48th Regular Meeting of the Conference of CARICOM Heads of Government. Credit: Alison Kentish/IPS

By Alison Kentish
BRIDGETOWN, Barbados , Feb 20 2025 (IPS)

Leaders of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) are meeting in Bridgetown from Feb. 19-21, as the world grapples with multiple crises, including escalating geopolitical conflicts, climate change and rising food insecurity.

“The only way that we will make it through these difficult times is if we are prepared to be more unified and bolder than ever,” Barbadian Prime Minister and CARICOM Chair Mia Mottley said at the opening of the CARICOM 48th Heads of Government Meeting in Bridgetown, Barbados, on Feb. 19.

“We don’t need anyone to tell us about the climate crisis,” she said, adding that “we know what it is each summer to have to hold our breath and to wait and to hope that this is not going to be our turn.”

Mottley urged heads of government of the 15 member nations to agree on a common platform on critical issues, a common vision and to work for what the people of the Caribbean need. The climate crisis is a critical agenda issue, with CARICOM leaders seeking partnership in protecting the lives, livelihoods, and cultures of those most vulnerable to climate change.

“We are in Barbados and if you don’t think that Barbados is worth fighting for, or the Bahamas is worth fighting for, or Dominica is worth fighting for, then I don’t know what is worth fighting for,” said Outgoing CARICOM Chairman, Grenada Prime Minister Dickon Mitchell.

United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres addressed the multiple crises of geopolitical tensions, the socio-economic impacts of COVID-19, soaring debt, the rising cost of living and climate disasters.

He stated that the solution requires a global approach.

“International solutions are essential to create a better today and a brighter tomorrow for this wonderful region and for the world. We have progress on which to build—hard-won global commitments to address the immense challenges we face. But we need the world to deliver.”

“The irrepressible strength of a unified Caribbean and commitment to multilateralism—which have done so much to advance global progress—are vital to achieving that aim,” he said.

European Union President Ursula von der Leyen, a special guest at the meeting, stated that the days of ‘might is right,’ where large nations drown out the voices of smaller ones, are over and that Europe is ready to listen and engage. She said, “Europe understands how the fight against climate change is paramount to the Caribbean states because it is intrinsically linked to your very existence.”

“We understand how fundamental it is for small islands to have a front seat at the table, where you can be the strong voice you deserve to be for this cause. And let’s be very clear—all continents will have to speed up the transition to climate neutrality as we all have to deal with the growing burden of climate change. Its impact is impossible to ignore.”

The 48th regular meeting of the Heads of Government of CARICOM is being held under the theme “Strength in Unity: Forging Caribbean Resilience, Inclusive Growth and Sustainable Development.”

The themes for discussion by the leaders are Food and Nutrition Security, CARICOM Single Market and Economy, Climate Change and Sustainable Development, Foreign Policy, Air and Maritime Transport and Regional Digital Resilience.

A closing media conference is scheduled for Feb. 21 to discuss key decisions and the way forward.

IPS UN Bureau Report

 

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

• Show Me the Money’—Grenada PM Calls for Climate Justice
• Survival at Stake: Caribbean Calls For Just, Fair Financing For Small Island States at COP
• Saint Kitts and Nevis: Leading the Charge for Climate Justice, Renewable Energy

In a powerful appeal to the world’s largest economies during the G20 Summit, November 2024, UN Secretary-General António Guterres called for urgent climate action and reform of international institutions, warning that current systems are failing to meet global challenges. Credit: UN Photo/Gustavo Stephan

By Danny Bradlow
PRETORIA, South Africa, Feb 19 2025 (IPS)

US president Donald Trump’s recent actions seem designed to reassert American power and demonstrate that it is still the dominant global power and is capable of bullying weaker nations into following America’s lead.

He has shown contempt for international collaboration by withdrawing from the UN climate negotiations and the World Health Organization. His officials have also indicated that they will not participate in upcoming G20 meetings because he does not like the policies of South Africa, the G20 president for 2025.

In addition, he’s shown a lack of concern for international solidarity by halting US aid programmes and by undermining efforts to keep businesses honest. He has demonstrated his contempt for allies by imposing tariffs on their exports.

These actions demand a response from the rest of the international community that mitigates the risk to the well-being of people and planet and the effective management of global affairs.
My research on global economic governance suggests that history can offer some guidance on how to shape an effective response.

Such a response should be based on a realistic assessment of the configuration of global forces. It should seek to build tactical coalitions between state and non-state actors in both the global south and the global north who can agree on clear and limited objectives.

The following three historical lessons help explain this point.

Cautionary lessons

The first lesson is about the dangers of being overoptimistic in assessing the potential for change. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, the US was confronting defeat in the war in Vietnam, high inflation and domestic unrest, including the assassination of leading politicians and the murder of protesting students.

The US was also losing confidence in its ability to sustain the international monetary order it had established at the Bretton Woods conference in 1944.

In addition, the countries of the global south were calling for a new international economic order that was more responsive to their needs. Given the concerns about the political and economic situation in the US and the relative strength of the Soviet bloc at the time, this seemed a realistic demand.

In August 1971, President Richard Nixon, without any international consultations, launched what became known as the Nixon Shock. He broke the link between gold and the US dollar, thereby ending the international monetary system established in 1944. He also imposed a 10% surcharge on all imports into the US.

When America’s European allies protested and sought to create a reformed version of the old monetary order, US treasury secretary John Connolly informed them that the dollar was our currency but your problem.

Over the course of the 1970s, US allies in western Europe, Asia and all countries that participated in the old Bretton Woods system were forced to accept what the US preferred: a market-based international monetary system in which the US dollar became the dominant currency.

The US, along with its allies in the global north, also defeated the calls for a new international economic order and imposed their neo-liberal economic order on the world.

The second cautionary lesson highlights the importance of building robust tactical coalitions. In 1969, the International Monetary Fund member states agreed to authorise the IMF to create special drawing rights, the IMF’s unique reserve asset.

At the time, many IMF developing country member states advocated establishing a link between development and the special drawing rights. This would enable those countries most in need of additional resources to access more than their proportionate share of special drawing rights to fund their development.

All developing countries supported this demand. But they couldn’t agree on how to do it. The rich countries were able to exploit these differences and defeat the proposed link between the special drawing rights and development.

As a result, the special drawing rights are now distributed to all IMF member states according to their quotas in the IMF. This means that most allocations go to the rich countries who do not need them and have no obligation to share them with developing countries.

A third lesson arises from the successful Jubilee 2000 campaign to forgive the debts of low-income developing countries experiencing debt crises. This campaign, supported by a secretariat in the United Kingdom, eventually involved: civil society organisations and activists in 40 countries a petition signed by 21 million people and governments in both creditor and debtor countries.

These efforts resulted in the cancellation of the debts of 35 developing countries. These debts, totalling about US$100 billion, were owed primarily to bilateral and multilateral official creditors.

They were also a demonstration of the political power that can be generated by the combined actions of civil society organisations and governments in both rich and poor countries.

They can force the most powerful and wealthy institutions and individuals in the world to accept actions that, while requiring them to make affordable sacrifices, benefit low-income countries and potentially poor communities within those states.

What conclusions should be drawn?

We shouldn’t under-estimate the power of the US or the determination of the MAGA movement to use that power. However, their power is not absolute. It is constrained by the relative decline in US power as countries such as China and India gain economic and political strength.

In addition, there are now mechanisms for international cooperation, such as the G20, where states can coordinate their actions and gain tactical victories that are meaningful to people and planet.

But gaining such victories will require the following:

Firstly, the formation of tactical coalitions that include states from both the global south and the global north. If these states cooperate around limited and shared objectives they can counter the vested interests around the world that support Trump’s objectives.

Secondly, a special kind of public-private partnership in which states and non-state actors set aside their differences and agree to cooperate to achieve limited shared objectives. Neither states alone nor civil society groups alone were able to defeat the vested interests that opposed debt relief in the late 1990s. Working together they were able to defeat powerful creditor interests and gain debt relief for the poorest states.

Thirdly, this special partnership will only be possible if there’s general agreement on both the diagnosis of the problem and on the general contours of the solution. This was the case with the debt issue in the 1990s.

There are good candidates for such collaborative actions. For example, many states and non-state actors agree that international financial institutions need to be reformed and made more responsive to the needs of those member states that actually use their services but lack voice and vote in their governance.

The institutions also need to be more accountable to those affected by their policies and practices. They also agree that large corporations and financial institutions should pay their fair share of taxes and should be environmentally and socially responsible.

The urgency of the challenges facing the global community demands that the world begin countering Trump as soon as possible. South Africa as the current chair of the G20 has a special responsibility to ensure that this year the G20, together with its engagement groups, acts creatively and responsibly in relation to people and planet.

Source: Conversation Africa

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');  

Excerpt:

Daniel D. Bradlow is Professor/Senior Research Fellow, Centre for the Advancement of Scholarship, University of Pretoria, South Africa.

Children in Gaza stand on debris from a destroyed building. February 2025. Credit: UN News

By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Feb 19 2025 (IPS)

President Trump—whose rash and ill-conceived proposals continue unabated—has threatened to “seize Gaza,” turn it into a “Riviera of the Middle East,” and move Palestinians to Egypt and Jordan, two longstanding American allies who depend heavily on US support for their survival.

The US President has also hinted that both countries would suffer either cutbacks or elimination of billions of dollars in economic and military aid —if they refuse to cooperate with him.

Is this for real or just an empty threat?

The proposed seizure of Gaza has been condemned by virtually all Arab leaders who have long advocated a full-fledged Palestinian homeland in the Gaza Strip

In an interview with Christiane Amanpour, Chief International Anchor for Cable News Network (CNN), Prince Turki Al-Faisal, a former Saudi ambassador to the US and UK, was quoted as saying Trump’s Gaza strategy is a “mad ethnic cleansing plan.”

Dr Ramzy Baroud, a journalist and Editor of The Palestine Chronicle, told IPS Arabs cannot accept Trump’s ethnic cleansing plan simply because doing so will destabilize the entire region and all of their regimes.

The repercussions of the original ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in 1948 are still felt throughout the Middle East to this day, he said.

At that time, the majority of the native population of the Palestinian homeland was displaced, around 800,000, most of whom remained displaced within historic Palestine.

Displacing a population of 2.2 million, following a genocide that has ignited rage across the Middle East and around the world, he argued, is a suicidal move for Arab regimes that are already struggling in a desperate search for legitimacy.

“I believe Trump already knows this, but is using the threats to put pressure on Arab regimes to come up with an ‘alternative’ plan aimed at disarming the Palestinian resistance, thus meeting Israel halfway. But in essence, the Arabs have no control over the outcome of the war in Gaza”.

If Israel has failed to disarm Gaza after 15 months of a war of extermination, the Arabs won’t be able to do so, said Dr Baroud, author of six books and a Non-resident Senior Research Fellow at the Center for Islam and Global Affairs (CIGA).

In an interview with FRANCE 24, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said Trump’s plan at “ethnic cleansing is not acceptable in our world”.

“In the search for solutions, we must not make the problem worse. It is vital to stay true to the bedrock of international law. It is essential to avoid any form of ethnic cleansing,” Guterres told the U.N. Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People.

Addressing members of the Committee last week, Guterres said: “At its essence, the exercise of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people is about the right of Palestinians to simply live as human beings in their own land.”

However, he said, “we have seen the realization of those rights steadily slip farther out of reach” as well as “a chilling, systematic dehumanization and demonization of an entire people.”

Dr Baroud said Prince Turki Al-Faisal is correct to call it “a mad ethnic cleansing plan”. It is.

But it will fail if the Arabs understand American intentions and focus their energies on supporting Palestinian steadfastness in Gaza

Israel is in its weakest position in decades, and aside from empty threats and rhetoric, it has very few cards left. Arab unity is now key, and I believe that a collective response could positively influence inner Arab relations and re-center Palestine as the driving cause for all Arab nations.

In fact, this could be the chance for the Arab League to matter once more, after decades of marginalization and irrelevance, declared Dr Baroud.

Meanwhile, when US Secretary of State Marco Rubio was in the Middle East last week, he was able to gauge the widespread Arab opposition to Trump’s plan, but apparently downplayed the proposal.

The New York Times quoted Rubio as saying Trump was merely trying to “get a reaction” and “stir” other nations into providing more assistance to post-war Gaza.

King Abdullah II of Jordan, leading a country which is already home to about 700,00 Palestinian, Syrian and Iraqi refugees, told Trump during a White House meeting last week that he is ready to offer a home to about 2,000 Palestinian children in need of medical care.

And perhaps nothing more.

Incidentally, the wife of the Jordanian King is Queen Rania, who is of Palestinian descent.

The proposed takeover of Gaza –and the forcible transfer of Palestinians—are considered both a war crime and a crime against humanity, according to the International Criminal Court (ICC).

Janina Dill, co-director of the Oxford Institute for Ethics, Law and Armed Conflict, was quoted in the New York Times, as saying: “Trump is just casually making major international crimes into policy proposals. He just normalizes violating, or proposing to violate, the absolute bedrock principles of international law”.

Meanwhile, Reuter’s reported that Egypt’s President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi will not travel to Washington for talks at the White House, if the agenda includes Trump’s plan to expel Palestinians from Gaza, according to two Egyptian security sources.

In a call with al-Sisi on 1 February, the US president extended an open invitation to the Egyptian President to visit the White House. No date has been set for any such visit, a US official said.

The Gaza takeover will also be the primary topic on the agenda of an emergency Arab Summit meeting scheduled to take place in Cairo March 4.

IPS UN Bureau Report

 

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

The U.S. efforts to pressure Ukraine to accept significant territorial losses to Russia in exchange for ending the war are expected to increase. Photo: Oleksandr Ratushniak / UNDP Ukraine

By Vyacheslav Likhachev
KYIV, Feb 18 2025 (IPS)

U.S. President Donald Trump and his special envoy for Ukraine and Russia, Keith Kellogg, have recently expressed confidence and optimism about the prospect of “ending” the war in Ukraine. No details have been made public; however, according to the new administration’s vision, both sides must make concessions to achieve peace. Yet it remains unclear not only what the proposed concessions are but also how exactly the US intends to persuade the parties to compromise.

President Trump has so far limited himself to vague threats to impose tariffs on non-existent Russian imports to the U.S. General Kellogg, for his part, has transparently hinted that Ukraine should abandon its unrealistic desire to liberate its territory occupied by Russia.

It is more likely that the plan is designed to satisfy the ambitions of Russian leader Vladimir Putin, albeit not to the maximalist extent. So, with a Trump administration, he may be closer than ever to getting his way in Ukraine

The U.S. efforts to pressure Ukraine to accept significant territorial losses to Russia in exchange for ending the war are expected to increase. In contrast to the various options discussed at the expert level last year, the new Trump administration has avoided making any commitments to future security guarantees for Ukraine.

Of course, it is still possible that a significant part of the U.S. proposal remains non-public. However, it is more likely that the plan is designed to satisfy the ambitions of Russian leader Vladimir Putin, albeit not to the maximalist extent. So, with a Trump administration, he may be closer than ever to getting his way in Ukraine.

In fact, this proposed deal appears indistinguishable from the Chinese-Brazilian peace plan discussed at various international venues last year. Both approaches would “freeze” the conflict, giving at least implicit recognition of Russia’s occupation of swathes of Ukrainian territory, as well as a permanent foothold from which Russia can launch future aggressions.

It is obvious why China and Russia’s other authoritarian allies would favor this plan. But why has it found support in the White House?

The general logic is as follows: Ukraine is not in a position to liberate all of its territories in the foreseeable future (especially not without very costly and politically fraught U.S. assistance); continuing hostilities only bring further suffering; and military activities, therefore, should stop as soon as possible.

This framework is deeply flawed and far from a fair resolution. However, other options in the current global political configuration are beginning to look simply unrealistic.

If somehow it is possible to add guarantees against further Russian aggression to the “Trump—Kellogg plan,” it will at least look workable. Proponents of this model cite the experience of post-war Germany and North Korea.

Persuading Ukraine to renounce territorial integrity would not be easy, but it is possible. It is hard to imagine what could make the Kremlin stop its troops.

It was only last summer that Vladimir Putin demanded that territories that Russia does not de facto control be handed over to him as a condition for a ceasefire. In its own perverse way, this is logical – like dealing with any common gangster, peace always comes at a cost.

Also, it is more difficult to imagine, however, what security commitments could be strong enough to prevent further Russian aggression and war crimes. More precisely, what guarantees would Western leaders, who are so afraid of escalation and any hint of a direct clash with Russia, agree to accept? But even if we assume that a solution to these dilemmas could be found, we would be required to accept the occupation as irreversible.

Attention should, therefore, be paid to the following aspect, which is usually omitted from the analysis: What is happening in Ukraine’s occupied territories is fundamentally different from the German situation half a century ago.

The Soviet Union did not deny post-war Germany’s right to statehood (no matter how much of a puppet the East German regime was), and Moscow did not deny the German people’s right to exist.

In the case of Ukraine, however, Russia is not simply trying to undermine Ukrainian statehood – it is trying to destroy Ukraine as a nation and as a people. Ukrainians, from the point of view of official Kremlin ideology, are Russians who have forgotten that they are Russian, and Russia must remind them of this fact.

This is playing out in the occupied territories, where Russian forces are implementing a regime of forced passportization, Russification of education, and the systemic persecution of any religious communities except those who were forcibly annexed to the Russian Orthodox Church under the leadership of the Moscow Patriarchate.

The practice of “Filtration Camps,” through which a significant part of the population of the occupied territories passed, is not without reason so reminiscent of Chinese methods of suppressing, or some would say, destroying the Uyghur minority.

What we are seeing in occupied Ukraine is a general pattern of social re-education on an Orwellian level.

The effectiveness of Russian methods should not be underestimated. Violence, propaganda, and bribery of those ready to imitate loyalty do their job. Ukrainians in the occupied territories are being turned into Russians. Those who think that this can be resolved once peace has been negotiated are either playing dumb or are truly naive.

Governments that are supporting Ukraine should instead focus on military aid as well as on accountability for Russia’s crime of aggression and the atrocities taking place against civilians.

The self-soothing illusion that the China-Brazil plan (or should I say “the Trump-Kellogg” one now?) will bring peace to Ukraine is a destructive one, and those in the West — including the U.S. administration —tempted to support this idea must wake up to the consequences of appeasing Putin.

Should the conflict in Ukraine be “frozen” by such an accord, all it will do is show dictators and autocrats that national sovereignty and the right to self-determination are negotiable. Ultimately, this won’t provide any of us any peace or comfort, but especially not those Ukrainians forced to remain under Russia’s yoke.

Excerpt:

Vyacheslav Likhachev, based in Kyiv, is an expert at the Center for Civil Liberties, a human rights organization that won the 2022 Nobel Peace Prize 

The UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) called for national healing in a report on the Bangladesh 2024 protests. Credit: UN Photo

By IPS Correspondent
UNITED NATIONS, Feb 14 2025 (IPS)

A new report from the UN Human Rights Office confirms that Bangladesh’s former government coordinated and committed human rights violations against its civilians to suppress the protest movement in July last year, with the high commissioner calling for justice and serious reform to end the cycle of violence and retribution.

On 12 February, the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) released a long-awaited report on the human rights violations and abuses that took place during and following the anti-government protests in Bangladesh from 1 July to 15 August, 2024. This report is the outcome of a fact-finding mission conducted in September at the invitation of the interim government and its Chief Advisor, Dr. Muhammad Yunus.

The student-led movement began as a protest against the country’s high court’s decision to reinstate an unpopular quota system for civil service jobs. The movement spread across the country and garnered national attention when senior officials of the Awami League, the former ruling party, decried the students’ requests. As the students faced escalating retaliation from the Awami League and security forces, protestors shifted their demands towards wider government reform and the resignation of former prime minister Sheikh Hasina. She fled to India on August 5, 2024, marking an end to her regime.

The report found that Hasina’s government and the security and intelligence teams systematically engaged in serious human rights violations. These included hundreds of extrajudicial killings, use of force on protestors, including children, and arbitrary detention and torture. OHCHR states that these human rights violations were conducted with the full knowledge and at the direction of the political leaders and security personnel, with the intent to suppress the protests.

“The brutal response was a calculated and well-coordinated strategy by the former government to hold onto power in the face of mass opposition,” said UN Human Rights Chief Volker Türk.

The OHCHR investigation found that senior Awami League officials mobilized their supporters and the Chhtra League, the party’s student wing, to carry out armed attacks on student protestors to dissuade dissent. When the protestors held their ground, police forces were instructed to take more forceful measures, and the government prepared to deploy paramilitary forces armed with military rifles.

The report confirmed the presence and use of metal pellets, rubber bullets, and tear gas on protestors, who were often unarmed. Excessive force was used against protestors by police and military personnel, notably the Rapid Action Battalion (RAB), a paramilitary group that have been criticized by human rights groups for their excessive use of violence and intimidation. An examination from Dhaka Medical College of 130 deaths from that period revealed that 80 percent were caused by firearms. Bangladesh’s Ministry of Health recorded over 13,000 injuries, many of which are long-term damage to the eyes and torso.

Women that participated in the protests faced verbal abuse and physical assaults from the police and Awami League supporters. Female students were also threatened with sexual violence to dissuade them from joining the protests. OHCHR references at least two accounts of women who were physically assaulted and groped by Chhatra League members before being turned over to the police. They remark in the report that it was possible that many more such cases might have occurred but were unreported.

OHCHR estimates that as many as 1,400 deaths occurred relating to the protests, with children accounting for approximately 12 percent of those deaths. These deaths occurred among underage students who participated in the protests or children who were bystanders and were fatally shot by stray bullets.

The report also notes the state’s efforts to suppress information and conceal the extent of the unrest. Journalists faced intimidation from security forces; by the end of the protests, at least 200 journalists were injured and six were confirmed dead. Meanwhile, the former government’s intelligence and telecommunications agencies implemented internet and telecom shutdowns without providing legal justification. This was to prevent the organization of protests through social media and prevented journalists, activists and the general public from sharing or accessing information about the protests and the government’s retaliation.

In the immediate aftermath of Hasina’s departure, the violence did not end. Instead, there were reported cases of revenge violence targeting the police, Awami League supporters, or those perceived to be supporting them. Reports also emerged of attacks on indigenous communities from the Chittagong Hill Tracts and the minority Hindu communities. Although 100 arrests relating to these attacks were reportedly made, many of the perpetrators still faced impunity.

OHCHR remarks that the former government’s crackdown on the protest movement constituted violations of international law. It is emblematic of a deeper trend towards employing intimidation and even lethal force to clamp down on civic and political activity.

The report concludes with a series of recommendations for sweeping reforms across the justice and security sectors and to implement broader changes to the political system.

Since the report’s release, the interim government has indicated they welcome its findings and will take steps to implement the recommendations. “I, along with everyone else working in the interim government and millions of other Bangladeshis, am committed to transforming Bangladesh into a country in which all its people can live in security and dignity,” Yunus said on Wednesday. Noting the report’s reference to structural issues within the law enforcement sectors, Yunus called on the people in those sectors to “side with justice, the law, and the people of Bangladesh in holding to account their own peers and others who have broken the law and violated the human and civil rights of their fellow citizens.”

Türk expressed that his office would be ready to support Bangladesh in the process of national accountability reform. “The best way forward for Bangladesh is to face the horrific wrongs committed during this period through a comprehensive process of truth-telling, healing and accountability and to redress the legacy of serious human rights violations and ensure they can never happen again.”

The interim government’s acknowledgement of the human rights report is to be welcomed. In the past, it was common for previous governments to dismiss any such reports. Healing and retribution must be owed to the lives lost during the protests. At the same time, this government and the people they represent must also recognize that in their efforts to seek justice and accountability, they should not fall into the trap of mob violence or a total otherizing of former leaders, even as the ousted regime carries out a campaign against the interim government and last year’s protests.

Meenakshi Ganguly, deputy Asia director at Human Rights Watch, warns that the government “should not repeat the mistakes of the past” and instead ensure the proper procedures for impartial rule of law. “Bangladeshis are angry over the repression by the Hasina administration and they deserve justice and accountability, but it has to be in a rights-respecting manner,” she said. “All crimes, including mob violence, should be punished, but when authority figures characterize opponents as the ‘devil,’ it can fuel abuses by security forces that have never faced accountability.”

IPS UN Bureau Report

 

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

The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are off track. Decades of progress on poverty and hunger have stalled, and in some cases, been thrown into reverse. Many developing economies are mired in debt, with financing challenges preventing the urgently needed investment push in the SDGs, according to the United Nations. But amid these challenges there lies opportunity. The Fourth International Conference on Financing for Development (FfD4) – 30 June to 3 July 2025--provides a unique opportunity to reform financing at all levels, including to support reform of the international financial architecture. Credit: United Nations

By Annika Otterstedt and Luca De Fraia
STOCKHOLM Sweden / MILAN, Italy, Feb 14 2025 (IPS)

When world leaders gather in Seville for the 4th International Conference on Financing for Development (FfD4) in June, they will be meeting at a pivotal moment: one defined by mounting systemic risks, a multiplication of crises, and proliferation and fragmentation of development co-operation actors and funds.

International development co-operation is also threatened by the ongoing erosion of funding, including through unilateral decisions of unparalleled magnitude. While momentum for reform and transformative change to the financial and development architecture is growing, it is crucial not to lose sight of the fundamentals.

To achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), increases in the quantity of development financing, be it official development assistance (ODA), private finance, or South-South co-operation, must be complemented with boosting the quality of all types of financing so that they are delivered and used in the most effective way.

Credit: Nuthawut Somsuk

Efforts to increase the quality of financing are embodied by the development effectiveness agenda and its internationally agreed principles: country ownership, focus on results, inclusive partnerships, and transparency and mutual accountability. The principles are tried and tested, and more relevant than ever.

They build on and reflect decades of global experience and are increasingly crucial for addressing the challenges that characterize today’s development co-operation landscape, such as fragmentation and misalignment with country priorities. They are also key for mobilising different types of finance from a growing array of development partners and partnerships.

Yet, as the development landscape has increased in complexity in the years after the 2015 Addis Ababa Action Agenda, the systematic focus on development effectiveness at country level has not been adequately integrated into country ecosystems and ambitions. For instance, Integrated National Finance Framework (INFF) processes could be better utilized as opportunities to talk about development effectiveness.

As Co-Chairs of the Global Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation, we believe that development effectiveness is essential to mobilising financing for sustainable development, across all types of international co-operation for development. The FfD4 Outcome Document must clearly stress this point.

A stronger, more systematic focus on the benefits of development effectiveness – and on addressing the bottlenecks and trade-offs that hinder progress on the 2030 Agenda and SDGs – is essential to reinstate trust, increase financing for development, and achieve long-term positive impacts.

The four principles of effective development co-operation remain the core enablers of development effectiveness. We welcome the focus of the recently released FfD4 Zero Draft Outcome Document on country leadership, coherence, and mutual accountability, but reiterate the need to uphold past commitments originating from the long-lasting aid effectiveness and development effectiveness processes.

It is important for the Outcome Document to stress the continued validity and intertwined nature of the four effectiveness principles, including the role of inclusive partnerships and of civil society organizations in particular.

The involvement of all stakeholders – partner countries, development partners, the private sector, civil society, parliamentarians, philanthropies, and trade unions – remains central to the effectiveness agenda. It is also important to focus on the effectiveness of partnerships with the private sector, in particular by creating enabling environments for a local private sector to thrive, an area monitored by the Global Partnership through the Kampala Principles Assessment.

Effective private sector partnerships are key for ensuring transparency and accountability and for combatting corruption. A whole-of-society approach is key to achieving true country ownership, which has emerged as a central theme in the FfD4 negotiations.

How can the Global Partnership and development effectiveness contribute to FfD4 and its follow-up?

First, the Global Partnership Monitoring Exercise provides evidence to inform how development actors can improve their policies, practices and partnerships, insights into progress in implementing the agreed effectiveness commitments, as well as opportunities for learning, dialogue and sharing of experiences on emerging effectiveness challenges.

The monitoring is a partner-country led tool holding development stakeholders to account for their implementation of the commitments, and a starting point for concrete action and behaviour change. Since 2011, 103 partner countries have led the monitoring exercise one or more times in collaboration with over 100 development partners and other actors. The ongoing global monitoring round will bring new evidence into the discussions on effectiveness, including in the lead-up and follow-up to FfD4.

(Read preliminary observations from the first 11 countries to complete data collection: Bosnia and Herzegovina, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Indonesia, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Nepal, the Philippines, Uganda, Yemen and Zambia).

The fresh insights from the monitoring round are one important source of evidence which will feed into country-led multi-stakeholder action for how to enhance effectiveness.

Second, the Global Partnership’s 4th High-Level Meeting (HLM4) in 2026, where the monitoring results will be presented, is the next crucial moment after FfD4 to take stock of development effectiveness, accelerate progress, drive accountability, and inform policy dialogue on international development co-operation trends.

We invite all development stakeholders to contribute to HLM4, and to act on the dilemmas, tensions and trade-offs we are all facing to expedite delivery of the 2030 Agenda. Strengthening and streamlining the development co-operation architecture must be a collaborative, inclusive process.

The Global Partnership offers a proven, multi-stakeholder platform to ensure that all voices are heard in shaping the future of development co-operation.

We invite you to join forces with us: raise the profile of development effectiveness in the lead-up and follow-up to FfD4, and use the monitoring findings for learning, dialogue and action at country level.

Recognizing that development effectiveness is a key enabler for sustainable development by 2030 (and beyond) and fully embracing and recognizing the effectiveness principles in their integrity, is a prerequisite for an impactful and action-oriented outcome at FfD4.

Annika Otterstedt is Assistant Director General, Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency and Luca De Fraia is Co-Chair, CSO Partnership for Development Effectiveness.

Annika Otterstedt and Luca De Fraia are also Co-Chairs of the Global Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation.

IPS UN Bureau

 

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

The UN General Assembly votes to suspend the rights of the membership of the Russian Federation in the Human Rights Council during an Emergency Special Session on Ukraine. April 2022. Credit: UN Photo/Manuel Elías

By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Feb 14 2025 (IPS)

When some of the world’s “authoritarian and repressive regimes” were elected as members of the UN Human Rights Council (HRC) –including Cuba, China, Russia, Kazakhstan and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) — a US Congressman Dana Rohrabacher infamously remarked: “The inmates have taken over the asylum, I don’t plan to give the lunatics any more American tax dollars to play with.”

That remark brought back memories of a 1975 award-winning Hollywood classic “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest”, with Jack Nicholson as a rebellious patient causing havoc at a US mental institution while leading a group of protesting inmates.

And last week, the US decided, metaphorically speaking, to fly over the cuckoo’s nest—and withdraw from the Geneva-based 47-member Human Rights Council.

https://news.un.org/en/story/2022/04/1115782

Dr. Simon Adams, President and CEO of the Center for Victims of Torture, told IPS the Human Rights Council and all United Nations bodies are better and stronger with the United States being actively engaged.

“Any state withdrawing from the HRC only encourages the dictators, torturers, and human rights abusers of the world. At this moment in history, with creeping authoritarianism and human rights under attack in so many parts of the world, the Human Rights Council remains indispensable,” he added.

UN Human Rights Council in session in Geneva. Credit: UN Photo/Elma Okic

Ambassador A.L.A. Azeez, a foreign policy commentator, who previously served as Sri Lanka’s Permanent Representative to the UN in Geneva, told IPS the United States’ withdrawal from the UNHRC is a counterproductive move that harms both US interests and the global cause of human rights.

This departure from a critical multilateral institution is unlikely to achieve transformative change within the council. It never happened with its previous withdrawals, nor may it happen now, with the current one, he pointed out.

What does it achieve then?

“It removes the US’s opportunity to engage constructively with members and stakeholders, contributing to the strengthening of human rights multilateralism. By exiting, the US forfeits its ability to shape the narrative, push for necessary reforms, and advocate for its values”.

Human rights multilateralism, he argued, depends on the engagement and collaboration of diverse nations. Not one state or a small group of states alone however influential they are!”

This withdrawal amounts to an abdication of shared responsibility for promoting and protecting human rights. It risks signaling a diminished US commitment to human rights, potentially eroding the international human rights system and damaging whatever credibility and moral authority the US has on the world stage, said Ambassador Azeez.

Periodic withdrawals from international bodies like the UNHRC severely damage the US’s image as a steadfast defender of human rights and multilateralism. The US cannot afford to project an image of selective engagement, perceived as contingent on the council’s alignment with US views.

This erosion of credibility hinders the US’s ability to lead by example and effectively champion human rights.

The primary motivation for the withdrawal seems to be concerns about bias against a close US ally in the Middle East. While such concerns are often expressed, is exiting the council the best solution? A more constructive approach would be to remain engaged and work to address perceived concerns from within.

While strategic calculations may drive the idea of disengagement from multilateral bodies, the era of unipolarity is over. Multilateralism must reassert itself, acting as a mediating force among competing geopolitical interests. The importance of remaining engaged in multilateral human rights efforts and driving meaningful change from within cannot be overstated, declared Ambassador Azeez.

Responding to a question at the UN press briefing February 4, UN Spokesperson Stephane Dujarric said: “It doesn’t alter our position on the importance of the Human Rights Council as part of the overall human rights architecture within the United Nations,” he said.

“And on UNRWA, I’m not sure that’s something that’s very new. I mean, and again, it doesn’t alter our commitment to supporting UNRWA in its work, and in its work of delivering critical services to Palestinians under its mandate,” said Dujarric.

Amanda Klasing, National Director, Government Relations & Advocacy with Amnesty International USA, said announcing that the United States is withdrawing from the Human Rights Council when it is not even a sitting member, is just the latest move by President Trump to demonstrate to the world his complete and blatant disregard for human rights and international cooperation — even if it weakens U.S. interests.

“Our world needs multilateral cooperation around shared interests, especially the protection of human rights. International institutions will continue to function, either with the U.S. or without it, but it seems that President Trump is uninterested in having a seat at that table to shape the norms and policies of the future, or even to protect the human rights of people in the United States”.

The HRC provides a global forum for governments to discuss human rights concerns, can authorize investigations that bring to light human rights violations, and, while not perfect, is a tool to hold governments accountable in fulfilling their human rights obligations, including to their own population.

President Trump’s performative decision to pull the U.S. out of the HRC, Klasing pointed out, signals to the rest of the world that the U.S. is happy to completely cede important decisions about human rights violations happening across the globe to other countries.

“This isn’t about President Trump thumbing his nose at the institution, instead he’s just demonstrating he’d rather make a callous show of rejecting human rights than do the work needed to protect and promote human rights for people everywhere, including in the U.S.”

https://www.amnestyusa.org/press-releases/u-s-withdrawal-from-un-human-rights-council-is-performative-disregard-for-human-rights/

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');  

Floods and heavy rain in Guam. Credit: - es3n@shutterstock.com

By Anselm Vogler
Feb 13 2025 (IPS)

 
The climate crisis is severely endangering human well-being. While the climate security nexus is omnipresent in national security strategies and on international institutions’ agendas, political responses remain insufficient and are often problematic. Among other issues, related policies often struggle with siloization or a focus on symptoms instead of root causes.

To address the core challenges to human security imposed by climate change, the “emergent practice of climate security” must be sensitive to two contexts. First, local political and economic contexts shape how these processes of environmental change translate into human insecurity. Second, climate change is only one of several ecological processes that endanger human security on our planet.

To substantiate this point, my recent publication documents the pathways to human insecurity in the specific political and economic contexts of Vanuatu and Guam. Both Pacific islands are exposed to climate change impacts such as sea level rise and intensifying extreme weather. However, their country-specific political and economic contexts translate this exposure into different forms of human insecurity. This means that similar climate change impacts have different implications for both islands.

For example, the economic differences mean that climate change impacts affect food security differently. In Vanuatu, most people engage in subsistence agriculture. In this economic context, sea level rise and tropical storms can disrupt food supplies directly by destroying local crops, particularly in rural areas. At the same time, local food habits on the Melanesian archipelago are currently shifting towards a growing reliance on lower-quality imported foods and these trends seem to be amplified by the side effects of disaster relief.

In contrast, the prevailing colonial integration of Guam into the United States economy has enforced diets centred around imported, processed food long ago. Food insecurity, therefore, comes about differently and rather results from a precarious form of economic integration. According to a study, every second respondent experienced not having enough money to pay for food and dietary quality was found to be insufficient. In particular, shares of fruit and vegetables intake are dramatically low and the mortality resulting from non-communicable diseases among Pacific islanders is on a worldwide high. In this context, climate change is rather an aggravating factor: while there is almost no local food production to be disrupted by extreme weathers, super typhoon Mawar endangered food security due to internal displacements and food price hikes. In addition, the islands tourism economy is endangered by these storms and by the additional risks that ocean warming creates for the island’s coral reefs. This poses a substantial risk to local’s livelihoods.

The differences in political status between Guam and Vanuatu also affect how climate change translates into human insecurity on these islands. Since it achieved independence in 1980, Vanuatu is a sovereign nation. This enables the country to make its voice on climate change heard in international fora. But it also limits the places and modes through which its citizens can leave the archipelago. Migration is a possible climate adaptation strategy but most Vanuatu citizens’ options are limited to participation in labour mobility programs where they temporarily move to Australia or New Zealand and conduct low-paid unskilled labour. Such programs can generate knowledge transfer and support climate adaptation – but they have also been criticized for causing a ‘brain drain’ on Vanuatu and to expose labour migrants to problematic working conditions in their destination countries.

In contrast, Guam is not a sovereign nation but an organized, unincorporated territory of the United States. This provides its inhabitants with a United States citizenship and according privileges of international mobility. This political status eases mobility and created large diaspora populations within the United States mainland. However, the political dependency comes at a severe cost as Guam has no institutional voice on the stage of international climate policy and remains at the “margins and periphery of climate-change planning within the United States.”

The case of Guam also demonstrates that climate change is not the only environmental danger that human security has to grapple with. Its economic and political integration enabled the arrival of invasive species. These severely affect the island’s ecosystems. For example, the brown tree snake nearly exterminated local bird life and the coconut rhinoceros beetle harms local trees. These ecological damages affect the human security dimension of “place, self and belonging” as, for example, birds play an important role in the indigenous Chamoru culture. Environmental crime is an even more proximate result of the local economy and heavy militarization. Finally, some preliminary indications suggest “past and ongoing asbestos exposure” on Guam.

The findings of my interview-based study of human insecurity on Vanuatu and Guam allow for two takeaways. First, the study demonstrates how climate change impacts virtually every aspect of human security. For example, climate change is entangled with a wide range of issues such as food security, international labour mobility, political and economic contexts. Consequently, virtually every governmental department needs to consider the interactions between climate change and human security.

But, secondly, virtually every impact of climate change on human security is shaped by context. The comparison of Vanuatu and Guam has shown the importance of local political and economic contexts. Consequently, climate change adaptation policies need to address these structural contexts to become effective. From us non-local actors, the local intricacies of climate-related human insecurity inevitably demand a desire for open-minded understanding and a respectful cooperation with local actors such as those who seek to protect Vanuatu and Guam.

Related articles:

Keeping climate security human centric
Climate change, international migration and self-determination: Lessons from Tuvalu
Climate change’s intangible loss and damage: Exploring the journeys of Pacific youth migrants

Dr. Anselm Vogler is a Postdoctoral Fellow at Harvard University and an emerging International Relations and (Critical) Security Studies scholar with a specialization in Environmental Peace and Conflict Research. Previously he obtained a PhD from Hamburg University and has worked at the University of Melbourne and the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. His research on human security, climate security frames in NDC and national security strategies, and the climate-defense nexus has been published in the International Studies Review, Political Geography, the Journal of Global Security Studies, and Global Environmental Change.

This article was issued by the Toda Peace Institute and is being republished from the original with their permission.

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');  

Tourism makes up about 10% of the global economy, but sustainable practices are key to protecting destinations and communities and boosting resilience. Credit: UNDP Maldives | Ashwa Faheem
 
The UN commemorates Global Tourism Resilience Day on 17 February.

By Francine Pickup
UNITED NATIONS, Feb 13 2025 (IPS)

Tourism is back – and stronger than ever. With 1.4 billion international tourist arrivals recorded globally in 2024, the sector has bounced back to pre-pandemic levels, signalling a recovery from its worst crisis.

But in a world facing climate shocks, resource depletion, and many conflicts and crises, recovery is not enough. Tourism must not only bounce back; it must drive sustainability and build resilience.

The Cost of Unchecked Tourism

Tourism drives economies, cultures, and connections, making up about 10% of the global economy and creating one in four new jobs. However, the rising number of tourists is pushing popular destinations to their limits. From overcrowding on Mount Everest to water shortages in Spain’s tourist hotspots, overtourism is increasingly problematic, exposing the environmental impact of tourism:

• Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Hotels, resorts, and restaurants rely on unsustainable energy and inefficient equipment, with cooling systems significantly contributing to emissions.
• Water Overconsumption: Tourists use about 300 liters of water (guest per night), stressing water-scarce regions.
• Waste and Pollution: Tourism generates excessive waste, overwhelming local systems. For example, 85% of wastewater in the Caribbean is untreated, harming marine ecosystems.
• Biodiversity Loss: Poorly planned tourism developments cause habitat destruction, deforestation, and coastal erosion, threatening ecosystems that attract visitors.
• Unsustainable Supply Chains: Tourism supply chains often rely on harmful chemicals and unsustainable practices, such as excessive pesticide use in food production, which damages the environment.

To ensure a sustainable future, tourism must shift from depleting resources to regenerating and protecting them.

Why Resilience Matters

The tourism industry is highly vulnerable to disruptions like climate change, disasters, pandemics, and economic downturns, particularly in developing countries and Small Island Developing States (SIDS), where tourism often accounts for over 20% of GDP.

These nations face rising sea levels, stronger storms, coral bleaching, and biodiversity loss, threatening their tourism industries and survival. Heavy reliance on imports and small economies increases vulnerability and recovery challenges.

To address these challenges, destinations must build more resilient and sustainable business models:

• Diversification: Relying on a single source of visitors or narrow products increases risk. Expanding markets and experiences can create buffers against disruptions. For example, Malaysia’s Sustainable Tourism Recovery project strengthens nature-based tourism, boosting resilience and diversifying the economy.
• Regenerative Practices: Sustainability is essential. Eco-friendly initiatives, local supply chains, and energy efficiency help minimize impacts. In Türkiye, the Cool Up initiative reduces energy consumption and emissions in tourism through natural refrigerant cooling systems.
• Local Empowerment: Engaging local communities strengthens resilience. In Ecuador, Indigenous communities use eco-tourism to preserve culture and the Amazon rainforest while benefiting from tourism.
• Crisis Preparedness: Governments, businesses, and communities must collaborate on contingency plans to adapt to climate change and reduce disaster risk. In the Caribbean, coral reef restoration protects marine life, boosts resilience to hurricanes, and supports tourism.

A New Era of Resilient and Sustainable Tourism

The tourism sector must evolve to become a champion for sustainability and build resilience against future disruptions. That means embracing solutions that ensure tourism supports – not depletes – the ecosystems and communities it depends on.

Working towards this transformation, UNDP has been supporting countries and communities around the globe to balance economic growth with environmental protection and community well-being.

This year, a new initiative is kicking off to drive systemic change across the tourism sector in 14 countries, including seven small island nations. Funded by the Global Environment Facility, the Integrated Collaborative Approaches to Sustainable Tourism (iCOAST) initiative is set to play a critical role in enhancing sustainable and resilient tourism by addressing key areas such as cooling, chemicals and waste, electronics, construction, food systems, and plastics.

With a vision to make tourism nature-based, low emission, zero-waste, and resilient, iCOAST will implement four core strategies:

• Strengthening Policy and Regulation: Supporting governments in crafting cohesive policies and regulatory frameworks for sustainable tourism.
• Increasing Access to Finance: Unlocking commercial and private sector funding to help businesses transition to sustainable practices.
• Cleaning Up Supply Chains: Removing harmful chemicals, reducing waste, and optimizing the use of natural resources across tourism-related industries.
• Fostering Global Knowledge Exchange: Creating a platform for transformative partnerships and cross-sector collaboration.

The Road Ahead

A resilient tourism sector not only survives crises but emerges stronger. By learning from past disruptions, prioritizing sustainability, and empowering local communities, we can build a more resilient, equitable, and enriching tourism industry.

Initiatives like iCOAST ensure tourism remains a cultural bridge while protecting ecosystems and communities. But resilience requires action. Governments, businesses, and travelers must recommit to tourism model that respects the planet and empowers people. Together, we can make sustainable, resilient tourism the standard.

(The iCOAST is funded by the Global Environment Facility and will be implemented across Belize, the Dominican Republic, Egypt, Honduras, Indonesia, Jamaica, Maldives, Mexico, Morocco, Seychelles, Tanzania, Trinidad and Tobago, Türkiye, and Vanuatu, by the following partners: UNDP, UNEP, WWF, UNIDO, FAO, IDB, European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, in cooperation with UN Tourism).

Francine Pickup is Deputy Director, UNDP Bureau for Policy and Programme Support, New York

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');