ReportWire

Tag: Global Geopolitics

  • Kazakhstan Takes Lead in Global Push for Nuclear Disarmament Amid Heightened Tensions

    Kazakhstan Takes Lead in Global Push for Nuclear Disarmament Amid Heightened Tensions

    [ad_1]

    Central Downtown Astana with Bayterek tower. Credit: Wikimedia Commons
    • Opinion by Katsuhiro Asagiri (tokyo/astana)
    • Inter Press Service

    TOKYO/ASTANA, Aug 19 (IPS) – In a world increasingly shadowed by the threat of nuclear conflict, Kazakhstan is stepping up its efforts in the global disarmament movement. On August 27-28, 2024, in collaboration with the United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs (UNODA), Kazakhstan will host a critical workshop in Astana. This gathering, the first of its kind in five years, is set to reinvigorate the five existing Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zones (NWFZs) and enhance cooperation and consultation among them.

    This initiative aligns with UN Secretary-General António Guterres’s Agenda for Disarmament, particularly Action 5, which emphasizes the strengthening of NWFZs through enhanced collaboration between zones, urging nuclear-armed states to respect relevant treaties, and supporting the establishment of new zones, such as in the Middle East. This effort reflects the global community’s ongoing push to reduce the nuclear threat and foster regional and global peace.

    Kazakhstan’s Historical Commitment to Disarmament

    Kazakhstan’s vision for a nuclear-free world is deeply rooted in its leadership in global disarmament efforts. This vision is not just aspirational; it is grounded in the country’s lived experience of the devastating impact of nuclear weapons. The Semipalatinsk Test Site in northeastern Kazakhstan, often referred to as “the Polygon,” was the site of 456 nuclear tests conducted by the Soviet Union between 1949 and 1989. These tests exposed over 1.5 million people to radiation, resulting in severe health consequences, including cancer and birth defects, as well as environmental degradation.

    Kazakhstan’s dedication to disarmament is further highlighted by its initiative to establish August 29 as the International Day against Nuclear Tests, recognized by the United Nations. This date commemorates both the first Soviet nuclear test at Semipalatinsk in 1949 and the closure of the site in 1991, serving as a reminder of the horrors of nuclear testing and a call to action for the global community.

    The Role of NWFZs in Global Security

    NWFZs are critical components of the global nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament architecture. There are five established NWFZs, created through treaties: Treaty of Tlatelolco (Latin America and the Caribbean), Treaty of Rarotonga (South Pacific), Treaty of Bangkok (Southeast Asia), Treaty of Pelindaba (Africa), Treaty of Semey (Central Asia) In addition, Mongolia’s unique status as a self-declared nuclear-weapon-free state, recognized through a United Nations General Assembly resolution, exemplifies a national commitment to nuclear non-proliferation.

    These zones prohibit the presence of nuclear weapons within their territories, reinforced by international verification and control systems. NWFZs play a crucial role in maintaining regional stability, reducing the risk of nuclear conflict, and promoting global disarmament.

    Astana Workshop: A Critical Gathering for Disarmament

    The upcoming workshop in Astana is a critical opportunity for states-parties to the five NWFZ treaties, alongside representatives from international organizations, to engage in vital discussions aimed at overcoming the challenges facing these zones. This gathering is particularly timely, given the escalating geopolitical tensions in regions where nuclear capabilities remain central to national security.

    A key focus of the workshop will be on enhancing cooperation among the NWFZs, as outlined in the Secretary-General’s Agenda for Disarmament. This includes facilitating consultation between the zones and encouraging nuclear-armed states to adhere to the protocols of these treaties. The workshop builds on the 2019 seminar titled “Cooperation Among Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zones and Mongolia,” co-organized by UNODA and Kazakhstan in Nur-Sultan(Astana), which produced key recommendations aimed at revitalizing cooperation among NWFZs.

    Participants will discuss strategies to advance the objectives of NWFZs, with an emphasis on strengthening security benefits for member states and fostering more robust consultation mechanisms. The workshop will also address the challenges posed by the reluctance of certain nuclear-armed states, particularly the United States, to ratify protocols related to several NWFZ treaties. Despite being a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), the U.S. has yet to ratify protocols to treaties covering the South Pacific (Treaty of Rarotonga), Africa (Treaty of Pelindaba), and Central Asia. This reluctance has impeded the full realization of the security benefits these zones could offer.

    Kazakhstan’s Leadership in the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW)

    Kazakhstan’s role in nuclear disarmament extends beyond NWFZs to include leadership in the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW). In March 2025, Kazakhstan will host the 3rd Meeting of State Parties to the TPNW at the United Nations, further solidifying its position as a champion of nuclear disarmament.

    Kazakhstan has been a vocal advocate of the TPNW and has actively pushed for the creation of an international fund to support victims of nuclear testing and remediate environments affected by nuclear activities, in line with Articles 6 and 7 of the treaty.

    The Vienna Action Plan, developed during the First Meeting of States Parties to the TPNW（１MSP）, outlines actions for implementing these articles, including exploring the feasibility of an international trust fund and encouraging affected states parties to assess the impacts of nuclear weapons use and testing and to develop national plans for implementation.

    At the Second Meeting of States Parties (2MSP), co-chaired by Kazakhstan and Kiribati, progress was made, but challenges remain. The informal working group on victim assistance, environmental remediation, and international cooperation presented a report, and its mandate was renewed, with the goal of submitting recommendations for the establishment of an international trust fund at the 3rd Meeting of States Parties (3MSP). Kazakhstan’s leadership in this area underscores its commitment to addressing the humanitarian impacts of nuclear weapons, drawing from its own experience with the devastating consequences of nuclear testing at Semipalatinsk.

    Civil Society’s Crucial Role

    As a part of the two day event, Soka Gakkai International (SGI) from Japan and the Center for International Security and Policy (CISP) will hold a side event in the evening of September 28 to screen the documentary “I Want to Live On: The Untold Stories of the Polygon,” highlighting the survivors of nuclear testing at Semipalatinsk. This documentary, produced by CISP with SGI’s support, was first shown at the UN during the second meeting of state parties to the TPNW in 2023. This side event is part of a broader initiative by SGI and Kazakhstan, which have co-organized several events focusing on the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons at UN, Vienna, and Astana in recent years.

    Also coinciding with the Astana workshop, the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) will hold a conference convening civil society organizations and activists including Hibakusha from some countries. This confluence of governmental and civil society efforts in Astana marks a significant moment in the global disarmament movement. While diplomats and state representatives discuss policy and cooperation during the official workshop, the parallel activities organized by civil society will amplify the humanitarian message and emphasize the urgent need for a world free of nuclear weapons.

    As global tensions rise, the Astana workshop represents a beacon of hope, a critical moment in the global journey toward disarmament. Through cooperation, dialogue, and a shared commitment to peace, the dream of a world free of nuclear weapons remains within reach. Kazakhstan, with the support of the international community, is at the forefront of this vital effort.

    INPS Japan/IPS UN Bureau


    Follow IPS News UN Bureau on Instagram

    © Inter Press Service (2024) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service

    [ad_2]

    Global Issues

    Source link

  • Settling the Middle East Vs West Asia Debate

    Settling the Middle East Vs West Asia Debate

    [ad_1]

    • Opinion by Ehtesham Shahid (abu dhabi)
    • Inter Press Service

    ABU DHABI, Jan 22 (IPS) – “Middle East” or “West Asia?” This somewhat divided nomenclature adds another layer to the region’s already “complicated” label. Is it the “Middle East” because it is in the “middle” of the East? Is it “West Asia” because it is in the western part of Asia? So, why is the region mostly called the Middle East? It is “geographically ambiguous” to some, as it is “East” only from the “West’s” perspective. The term West Asia has fewer challengers, but it isn’t used as much.

    Ehtesham Shahid

    According to Principles of Nomenclature and Classification, a fundamental problem for nomenclature is the existence of two or more names for the same taxon, for only one name can be considered correct or valid. Taxon is not so much of a contention in this case; a lack of unison exists. The names of geographical regions have had historical, cultural, and sometimes even linguistic significance.

    Some region’s names are based on events that took place there. For instance, the “Balkans” in South-eastern Europe is named after the Balkan Mountains, which have played a significant role in the region’s history. Geographical features often influence names, too. North America’s “Rocky Mountains” are named for their rugged terrain, while the Amazon rainforest is named after the Amazon River.

    Some regions have been named after prominent geographic features or valuable resources. For instance, the Sahara Desert is named after the Arabic word for “desert,” and Sierra Nevada means “snowy range” in Spanish. More importantly, political factors have played a role in naming regions with borders and administrative divisions, leading to new names, often for practical or administrative purposes.

    The widespread perception behind the term “Middle East” is that it originated in the 1850s in the British India Office. It is also documented that the name was more widely used after American naval strategist Alfred Thayer Mahan used the term in 1902 to “designate the area between Arabia and India.” However, the term was used mainly in a Eurocentric context to refer to the countries and territories of the Ottoman Empire and the surrounding regions.

    The Middle East is geographically situated on the western edge of Asia, bordered by Asia to the east and northeast. This geographical proximity and the interconnected history, culture, and trade between the Middle East and other Asian regions have contributed to its classification as part of Asia. Fortunately or otherwise, these terms have no strict, universally accepted definition, and their usage can vary depending on context and perspective.

    “West Asia” is a more modern term that has gained popularity, especially in academic and geopolitical contexts, and is often seen as a more neutral and geographically accurate descriptor for the region. It is often used as an alternative to “Middle East,” avoiding some historical and cultural connotations associated with the region. Whichever way one looks at it, a nomenclature clash goes against the ethos of constructivism in international relations, which emphasizes the role of ideas, norms, and identities in shaping state behavior and global politics.

    Another school of thought maintains that the term Middle East has been associated with the broader region’s cultural and historical ties to the Eastern Mediterranean and the Arab world and often implies a broader cultural and historical context. The exact boundaries of the Middle East or West Asia can vary depending on these perspectives. Moreover, both the terms have evolved and have historical, geopolitical, and cultural significance.

    Some definitions may include specific countries, while others may exclude them. For example, Egypt and Turkey are sometimes included in the Middle East but are more accurately described as transcontinental countries. These terms are primarily geopolitical and do not necessarily reflect cultural, historical, or linguistic differences. Political considerations and regional sensitivities may also often influence the choice of terminology.

    Both terms are widely used in practice, and their boundaries can be somewhat fluid. The choice between “Middle East” and “West Asia” often depends on the context, the specific focus of the discussion, and regional preferences. It only shows that naming countries and regions has often been a source of incongruities and anomalies due to historical, political, cultural, and linguistic factors.

    Some examples from outside the region illustrate this argument. Geographic names can sometimes lead to anomalies when they do not accurately reflect the territory they encompass. For instance, the Ivory Coast (Côte d’Ivoire) was named after its principal export, but it does not cover the entire country.

    The legacies of imperialist powers have been the most potent factor behind incongruous names. These examples illustrate how a complex interplay of historical events, political power dynamics, linguistic diversity, and cultural identities has shaped naming conventions. Seen in its entirety, incongruities in nomenclature can persist and often reflect colonial legacy, territorial disputes, or changing political circumstances.

    Ehtesham Shahid is an Indian editor and researcher based in the UAE. X: @e2sham

    “The article first appeared in Khaleej Times.” (https://www.khaleejtimes.com/opinion/settling-the-middle-east-vs-west-asia-debate)

    IPS UN Bureau


    Follow IPS News UN Bureau on Instagram

    © Inter Press Service (2024) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service

    [ad_2]

    Global Issues

    Source link

  • US has Provided Over 130 Billion Dollars in Aid & Weapons to Israel – the Largest Ever

    US has Provided Over 130 Billion Dollars in Aid & Weapons to Israel – the Largest Ever

    [ad_1]

    Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II : a Fifth Generation Stealth Fighter aircraft- (Wikipedia)
    • by Thalif Deen (united nations)
    • Inter Press Service

    UNITED NATIONS, Nov 17 (IPS) – As one of America’s closest allies, Israel has remained heavily dependent on the US —politically, economically, and militarily—since its creation in 1948.

    US arms supplies, mostly provided gratis, are channeled via US Foreign Military Financing (FMF), Military Assistance Program (MAP) and Excess Defense Articles (EDA).

    According to the Congressional Research Service (CRS), the US has provided more foreign assistance to Israel since World War II than to any other country.

    The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) documented that the United States supplied 79 percent of all weapons transferred to Israel from 2018-2022.

    No one else was even close – the next closest suppliers were Germany with 20 percent and Italy with just 0.2 percent.

    A Fact Sheet released October 2023, by the US State Department’s Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, provides a detailed official breakdown on the unrestrained American security assistance to Israel.

    Steadfast support for Israel’s security has been a cornerstone of American foreign policy for every U.S. Administration since the presidency of Harry S. Truman.

    Since Israel’s founding in 1948, the State Department said, the United States has provided Israel with over $130 billion in bilateral assistance focused on addressing new and complex security threats, bridging Israel’s capability gaps through security assistance and cooperation, increasing interoperability through joint exercises, and helping Israel maintain its Qualitative Military Edge (QME).

    This assistance, says the State Department, has helped transform the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) into “one of the world’s most capable, effective militaries and turned the Israeli military industry and technology sector into one of the largest exporters of military capabilities worldwide.”

    In the current war, Israel’s overwhelming fire power has resulted in the killings of thousands of Palestinian civilians in Gaza and the destruction of entire cities—mostly with US supplied weapons.

    Dr. Natalie J. Goldring, a Visiting Professor of the Practice in the Sanford School of Public Policy at Duke University, told IPS the October 7 Hamas attacks were horrendous acts and should be condemned as such.

    “Even so, the Israeli responses to those attacks have been indiscriminate – intentionally so,” she said.

    Two days after the Hamas attacks, Israeli defense minister Yoav Gallant declared that Israel would carry out a “complete siege” of Gaza, including blocking the supply of water, food, and fuel, while also stopping the supply of electricity. And Israeli forces have done so, she pointed out.

    “The US government bears a special responsibility for the continuing Israeli attacks. It has supplied Israel with massive quantities of military aid and weaponry, and Israel has ignored US restrictions on the use of those weapons”.

    This supply of weapons and ammunition allows the Israeli military to continue its indiscriminate attacks in Gaza,” said Dr Goldring, who also represents the Acronym Institute at the United Nations, on conventional weapons and arms trade issues.

    “A key first step in reducing the human cost of this war is for the US government to call for an immediate ceasefire. The US government should also halt supplies of weapons and ammunition to Israel, whether from the US itself or from prepositioned stocks elsewhere.”

    Since 1983, the United States and Israel have met regularly via the Joint Political-Military Group (JPMG) to promote shared policies, address common threats and concerns, and identify new areas for security cooperation.

    According to the State Department, Israel is the leading global recipient of Title 22 U.S. security assistance under the Foreign Military Financing (FMF) program. This has been formalized by a 10-year (2019-2028) Memorandum of Understanding (MOU).

    Consistent with the MOU, the United States annually provides $3.3 billion in FMF and $500 million for cooperative programs for missile defense. Since FY 2009, the United States has provided Israel with $3.4 billion in funding for missile defense, including $1.3 billion for Iron Dome support starting in FY 2011.

    Through FMF, the United States provides Israel with access to some of the most advanced military equipment in the world, including the F-35 Stealth fighter aircraft.

    Israel is eligible for Cash Flow Financing and is authorized to use its annual FMF allocation to procure defense articles, services, and training through the Foreign Military Sales (FMS) system, Direct Commercial Contract agreements – which are FMF-funded Direct Commercial Sales procurements – and through Off Shore Procurement (OSP).

    Via OSP the current MOU allows Israel to spend a portion of its FMF on Israeli-origin rather than U.S.-origin defense articles. This was 25 percent in FY 2019 but is set to phase-out and decrease to zero in FY 2028.

    Elaborating further Dr Goldring said: “Unfortunately, the situation in Gaza bears similarities to the documented uses of US weapons by the Saudi-led coalition in attacks on civilians in Yemen”

    She said: “Our response should be the same in both cases. These countries have failed to honor the conditions of US weapons transfers, and should be ineligible for further transfers until they are in compliance.”

    “US arms transfer decision-making gives too much weight to the judgment of government officials and politicians who frequently fail to consider the full human costs of these transfers,” she argued.

    “Earlier this year, the Biden Administration released a new Conventional Arms Transfer policy. They claimed that arms transfers would not be approved when their analysis concluded that “it is more likely than not” that the arms transferred would be used to commit or facilitate the commission of serious violations of international humanitarian or human rights law.”

    The actions of the Israeli and Saudi militaries are examples of ways in which this standard is not being met, declared Dr Goldring.

    As of October 2023, the United States has 599 active Foreign Military Sales (FMS) cases, valued at $23.8 billion, with Israel. FMS cases notified to Congress are listed here; priority initiatives include: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Aircraft; CH-53K Heavy Lift Helicopters; KC-46A Aerial Refueling Tankers; and precision-guided munitions.

    From FY 2018 through FY 2022, the U.S. has also authorized the permanent export of over $5.7billion in defense articles to Israel via the Direct Commercial Sales (DCS) process.

    The top categories of DCS to Israel were XIX-Toxicological Agents, including Chemical Agents, Biological Agents, and Associated Equipment (this includes detection equipment ((f)), vaccines ((g)-(h)) and modeling software ((i)); IV- Launch Vehicles, Guided Missiles, Ballistic Missiles, Rockets, Torpedoes, Bombs, and Mines; and VII- Aircraft.

    Since 1992, the United States has provided Israel with $6.6 billion worth of equipment under the Excess Defense Articles program, including weapons, spare parts, weapons, and simulators.

    U.S. European Command also maintains in Israel the U.S. War Reserve Stockpile, which can be used to boost Israeli defenses in the case of a significant military emergency.

    In addition to security assistance and arms sales, the United States participates in a variety of exchanges with Israel, including military exercises like Juniper Oak and Juniper Falcon, as well as joint research, and weapons development.

    The United States and Israel have signed multiple bilateral defense cooperation agreements, to include: a Mutual Defense Assistance Agreement (1952); a General Security of Information Agreement (1982); a Mutual Logistics Support Agreement (1991); and a Status of Forces Agreement (1994), according to the State Department.

    Since 2011, the United States has also invested more than $8 million in Conventional Weapons Destruction programs in the West Bank to improve regional and human security through the survey and clearance of undisputed minefields.

    Following years of negotiations with the Palestinians and Israelis, humanitarian mine action activities began in April 2014 – this represents the first humanitarian clearance of landmine contamination in nearly five decades.

    Israel has also been designated as a U.S. Major Non-NATO Ally under U.S. law. This status provides foreign partners with certain benefits in the areas of defense trade and security cooperation and is a powerful symbol of their close relationship with the United States.

    Thalif Deen was a former Senior Defense Analyst at Forecast International, Military Editor Middle East/Africa at Jane’s Information Group and Director, Foreign Military Markets at Defense Marketing Services.

    IPS UN Bureau Report


    Follow IPS News UN Bureau on Instagram

    © Inter Press Service (2023) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service

    [ad_2]

    Global Issues

    Source link

  • The Carnage in Gaza Cries Out for Repudiation & Opposition. Maybe Poetry Can Help.

    The Carnage in Gaza Cries Out for Repudiation & Opposition. Maybe Poetry Can Help.

    [ad_1]

    • Opinion by Norman Solomon (san francisco, usa)
    • Inter Press Service

    SAN FRANCISCO, USA, Nov 17 (IPS) – Two centuries ago, Percy Shelley wrote that “poets are the unacknowledged legislators of the world.” Yet elite power has routinely vetoed their best measures. Still, the ability of poetry to inspire and nurture is precious, including when governments are on protracted killing sprees.

    In Gaza, more than 11,000 civilians have been killed since early October. Children are perishing at an average rate of 10 deaths per hour. The ongoing slaughter by Israeli forces — supported by huge military aid from the United States — follows Hamas’s atrocities on Oct. 7 in Israel, where the latest estimate of the death toll is 1,200 including at least 846 civilians in addition to some 200 hostages.

    But numbers don’t get us very far in human terms. And news accounts have limited capacities to connect with real emotions.

    That’s where poetry can go far beyond where journalism fails. A few words from a poet might chip away at the frozen blocks that support illegitimate power. And we might gain strength from the clarity that a few lines can bring.

    Stanley Kunitz wrote:

    In a murderous time
    the heart breaks and breaks
    and lives by breaking.
    It is necessary to go
    through dark and deeper dark
    and not to turn.

    “In a dark time,” Theodore Roethke wrote, “the eye begins to see.”

    Bob Dylan wrote lines that could now be heard as addressing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and President Biden:

    You fasten all the triggers
    For the others to fire
    Then you sit back and watch
    When the death count gets higher
    You hide in your mansion
    While the young people’s blood
    Flows out of their bodies
    And is buried in the mud

    June Jordan wrote:

    I was born a Black woman
    and now
    I am become a Palestinian
    against the relentless laughter of evil
    there is less and less living room
    and where are my loved ones?

    In the United States, far away from the carnage, viewers and listeners and readers can easily prefer not to truly see that “their” government is helping Israel to keep killing thousands upon thousands of Palestinian children and other civilians. “I call it cruel and maybe the root of all cruelty / to know what occurs but not recognize the fact,” a poem by William Stafford says.

    From Pink Floyd:Don’t accept that what’s happening
    Is just a case of others’ suffering
    Or you’ll find that you’re joining in
    The turning away
    . . . .
    Just a world that we all must share
    It’s not enough just to stand and stare
    Is it only a dream that there’ll be
    No more turning away?

    Franz Kafka wrote: “You can hold yourself back from the sufferings of the world, that is something you are free to do and it accords with your nature, but perhaps this very holding back is the one suffering you could avoid.”

    Norman Solomon is national director of RootsAction.org and executive director of the Institute for Public Accuracy. He is the author of many books including War Made Easy. His latest book, War Made Invisible: How America Hides the Human Toll of Its Military Machine, was published in summer 2023 by The New Press.

    IPS UN Bureau


    Follow IPS News UN Bureau on Instagram

    © Inter Press Service (2023) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service

    [ad_2]

    Global Issues

    Source link

  • What Is Israel’s End-Game in Gaza?

    What Is Israel’s End-Game in Gaza?

    [ad_1]

    Missile strikes on Gaza are continuing. Credit: UNICEF/Eyad El Baba
    • Opinion by Alon Ben-Meir (new york)
    • Inter Press Service

    NEW YORK, Nov 13 (IPS) – Unless Israel establishes an exit strategy and an end-game that will lead to a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in full coordination with the US and Saudi Arabia, the war against Hamas will only be another brutal violent episode that will prepare the ground for the next conflagration that will engulf the West Bank and potentially set the entire region on fire.

    What Is Israel’s End-Game in Gaza?

    As the Israel-Hamas war grinds on, the international call for a ceasefire or at a minimum a pause in the fighting for a couple of days to allow for the delivery of badly needed necessities is absolutely essential at this juncture. It is glaringly evident that there is growing international sympathy towards the Palestinians, given the magnitude of destruction and loss of life.

    This humanitarian crisis of such incredible scale is overshadowing the unconscionable slaughter of 1,400 people in Israel and the kidnapping of 248 others. Sadly though, although Israel has the right to self-defense, the campaign to eradicate Hamas is increasingly resembling a war of revenge and retribution. It has caused tremendous destruction and human suffering.

    After only four weeks, nearly 11,000 in Gaza are dead, one-third of them children under the age of 18, there is a horrifying scarcity of food, medicine, water, and fuel, and nearly half the population is now internally displaced.

    This calamity is unfolding in front of our eyes and must stop, even temporarily, to help save the lives of many of the tens of thousands who are wounded, bury the dead, and avert wide-spread starvation. And even though a temporary cessation of hostilities benefits Hamas, it is still worth undertaking not only to alleviate the horrifying suffering of the entire population in Gaza, but also to open a window for negotiating the release of as many hostages as possible, especially all women and children, in exchange for the pause in fighting.

    Whereas Israel’s stated goal from the onset was and still justifiably is the destruction of Hamas, Israel has not offered as yet any clear exit strategy nor endgame. Once Hamas is completely defeated, which is still a tall order, Israel with the support of the US and Saudi Arabia in particular will have to offer a sound alternative that meets the Palestinians’ aspiration and render Hamas irrelevant.

    President Biden should demand that Prime Minister Netanyahu and his military brass develop, in coordination with the US, a clear exit strategy and an end-game consistent with Israel’s, the Palestinians’, and the US’ national interests.

    The protests that have taken place across major cities in the US over the weekend, including Washington, DC, are arguably some of the biggest that we’ve seen in a long time. These calls for a ceasefire or a pause in the fighting for humanitarian reasons are exerting pressure on Biden to change his near-unconditional support of Israel’s war efforts, which he can no longer ignore. This is particularly important because the US’ unwavering support of Israel makes the Biden administration complicit to the unfolding tragedy, which is intensely criticized from the ranks of leading Democrats as well.

    What should be the end game? I believe there are three possible scenarios, two of which are impractical in a sense that they will not lead to a permanent solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

    Israeli control over Gaza

    First, Netanyahu is claiming that he wants to maintain security over Gaza, but he’s not saying who will govern and administer the Strip. Does he want to reoccupy all of Gaza or just the northern half, which may explain why he wanted the Palestinians to head south. President Biden is very correct to suggest that the reoccupation of Gaza, be that in part or in full, will be nothing short of a disaster for Israel and will only guarantee the prolongation of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

    Moreover, it should be emphasized here that given Israel’s experience in the occupied West Bank, maintaining security was only marginally successful at best as evidenced by the continuing violence between Israeli forces and Palestinians, which has been increasingly escalating.

    Netanyahu is a fool to assume that he can maintain control over Gaza by establishing a security apparatus when the Hamas-affiliated militants in Gaza will subject the Israeli forces to terrorist attacks that will exact a heavy toll in blood and treasure. The violence in the West Bank will pale in comparison to what Hamas’ militants in Gaza will still be capable of doing against Israeli forces without an end in sight.

    Resettling Palestinians in Egypt

    The second option, which Netanyahu has been exploring with Egypt, would allow the settling of a few hundred thousand Palestinians in the Sinai; Egypt would assume administrative responsibility in Gaza while Israel maintains security. Egyptian President Sisi flatly rejected any future involvement with the Palestinians in Gaza, other than facilitating through the Rafah crossing the passage of people for justifiable reasons as well as the transfer of goods.

    The Egyptian government considers Hamas a branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, which is outlawed in Egypt. For this reason, Egypt has also blockaded Gaza to prevent the infiltration of Hamas militants into the country.

    Moreover, Egypt has troubles of its own. The economy is in a dire situation, and its concerns over security are mounting. Egypt simply does not want to add more to its domestic problems. Thus, they are not interested in any solution that will burden them with the Palestinians. That said, President Sisi was clear that regardless of how this war ends, a framework for a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict must be established, otherwise it will be only a question of time when this war will invite another.

    Transitional period for Gaza with UN supervision

    The third option may well be more viable as it would entail a transitional period whereby the United Nations would assume responsibility. Administratively, as is well known, UNWRA has been on the ground for decades, providing aid and development services, including education, healthcare, microfinance, and job training.

    Although it has not been involved in the running of Gaza itself, UNWRA is very familiar with the scene in Gaza. It is familiar with the population’s needs, the prevailing socio-economic conditions, and the day-to-day problems Gazans face. UNWRA is in the best possible position to assume greater responsibility under a modified and expanded mandate, provided that it receives the manpower and the funding necessary.

    In conjunction with UNWRA’s added administrative responsibilities, it will be necessary to establish a peacekeeping force to be in charge of security. This force ought to be comprised exclusively of the Arab states that are at peace with Israel, namely the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Bahrain, and Morocco, as well as Egypt.

    It should be made clear that although post-Hamas the West Bank and Gaza should be governed by the Palestinian Authority (PA), this should not and in fact cannot happen for at least a year to 18 months following the establishment of a UN administrative authority in Gaza.

    During this period, the Palestinians in both the West Bank and Gaza would prepare themselves politically for a new election. The current PA is corrupt to the bone; President Abbas is rejected and despised by the majority of Palestinians and must go. Only a new, fresh, and uncorrupt newly-elected leadership that enjoys the confidence of the people can succeed.

    On the Israeli side, no one should hold their breath waiting for Netanyahu and his gang of zealous coalition partners to agree on anything that even resembles an independent Palestinian state. Once the war ends, Netanyahu will face an inquiry about the unprecedented disaster that took place under his watch and he will have to resign or be ousted. Here too, a new government will have to be established in Israel which must commit itself from the onset to a two-state solution.

    Once the above two prerequisites are in place, the UN administrative authority will then relinquish its role and responsibility to the PA.

    The Arab states should condition their commitment to provide a peacekeeping force upon Israel’s acceptance of a two-state solution. That is, once such a peacekeeping force is created, the process of peacebuilding ought to commence in earnest toward that end. Any interim solution must be used only as a vehicle toward a final resolution, otherwise it would serve as nothing less than a respite from waiting for another disaster to unfold.

    The role of the US and Saudi Arabia

    Saudi Arabia and the US can play a major, in fact indispensable, role in this regard: The US has and continues to be the ultimate guarantor of Israel’s national security, and President Biden has done more than any of his predecessors in this regard and demonstrated that in the most unambiguous way by his unflagging support of Israel.

    He must make it very clear (and is in a position to do so) to Netanyahu or his successor that the US’ unwavering support bears considerable political cost to America both domestically as well as internationally. Many countries around the world view the US as complicit to the unfolding horror in Gaza. President Biden must put in place a framework for a two-state solution, which he has been advocating for many decades.

    The negotiating peace process will certainly take more than year to complete. 2024 is an election year in the US, but regardless of who the next president might be, Biden will have to stick to the plans because another Israeli-Palestinian conflagration will inescapably involve the US. It’s time for the US to put its foot down, no longer give Israel carte blanche to do as it pleases, and condition further support, financial and military, to genuine efforts to negotiate in good faith and reach a peace agreement.

    Saudi Arabia can complement the US initiative with its own most significant role by seizing on the breakdown in the Israeli-Palestinian relations and offering an unprecedented breakthrough to bring an end to the conflict. The Saudis should make it clear that once the war ends, they will be ready to normalize relations with Israel on the condition that a new Israeli government agree to a two-state solution and negotiate continuously until an agreement is reached.

    This war must end, leaving Hamas dramatically weakened and in disarray. But Hamas’ ultimate defeat will not be on the battlefield, it will be by creating an alternative to Hamas’ governance from which the Palestinians will greatly benefit. That contrast ought to be made clearly and immediately to demonstrate to the Palestinians that Hamas was not only the enemy of Israel but the enemy of ordinary Palestinians. Yes, all Palestinians in Gaza want to live in peace and prosper but were deprived of living a normal life because of Hamas’ violent resistance to Israel, squandering every resource to fight Israel while leaving the people despairing and hopeless.

    Israel should not prolong this tragic war by even one unnecessary day. Indeed, if this war lasts another month or two, it is almost certain that 20,000 to 30,000 Palestinians, mostly innocent civilians, and scores of Israeli soldiers will be killed. The continuation of the terrifying death and destruction in Gaza along with Israeli losses will only deepen the hate, enmity, and distrust between Israel and the Palestinians and make a solution to the conflict ever more intractable.

    Every Israeli should ask him/herself the painful question: do we want to memorialize the death of 1,400 innocent Israelis butchered by Hamas by killing, however inadvertently, 20,000 Palestinians? Is that how the Israeli victims should be commemorated? This is something that every Israeli needs to think about.

    Yes, Israel can and will win every battle against Hamas, but it will lose the war unless a peace process between Israel and the Palestinians begins once the war comes to an end, under the auspices of the US and Saudi Arabia, which must lead to a two-state solution.

    For more information on how a sustainable peace agreement based on a two-state solution can be reached, please refer to my essay in World Affairs https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/00438200211066350
    “The Case for an Israeli-Palestinian-Jordanian Confederation: Why Now and How?”

    Dr Alon Ben-Meir is a professor of international relations at the Center for Global Affairs at NYU. He teaches courses on international negotiation and Middle Eastern studies. [email protected]

    IPS UN Bureau


    Follow IPS News UN Bureau on Instagram

    © Inter Press Service (2023) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service

    [ad_2]

    Global Issues

    Source link

  • What Happens in the Arctic Does Not Stay in the Arctic

    What Happens in the Arctic Does Not Stay in the Arctic

    [ad_1]

    • Opinion by Jan Lundius (stockholm, sweden)
    • Inter Press Service

    STOCKHOLM, Sweden, Sep 12 (IPS) – While climate change is relentlessly progressing, threatening life on earth, world leaders continue to meet while planning for a future where this immense menace to human existence remains a minor item on the agenda.

    © Inter Press Service (2023) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service

    [ad_2]

    Global Issues

    Source link

  • Scramble For Africa: It’s Not 1884 All Over Again, Is It?

    Scramble For Africa: It’s Not 1884 All Over Again, Is It?

    [ad_1]

    Credit: Angela Umoru-David
    • Opinion by wgarcia (abuja)
    • Inter Press Service

    ABUJA, Aug 01 (IPS) – Not all wars are fought on the battleground. The Cold War has taught us that certain wars could go on for decades, without overt violence. Perhaps, we are in the middle of another one with China as the new rival to the United States of America. This time, the ‘battlefield’ is Africa.

    This Voice of America article speaks on how China is already outpacing the U.S. in its relations with the continent. New York Times cites loans provided by the Chinese government to several African nations and investments such as hospitals, transportation infrastructure and stadiums already dotting the African landscape.

    Similarly, we all know of how the United States has heavily supported many countries in Africa through trade and in the fight against insurgency; putting boots on the ground, supplying top-grade artillery, training security agencies etc.

    There is no point in rehashing the dysfunctional relationship Africa has had with… hmmm, what’s the right term? The global north? Developed nations? Let’s just say ‘richer nations’.

    Also, there is no need to debate how that wealth came to be. The point is that Africa has, for the longest time, depended on wealthier nations for humanitarian aid and oftentimes, this aid always comes with strings attached.

    Recently, I was at an event organized by Devex where Congresswoman Sara Jacobs spoke on US-Africa relations. She made very valid points about how the United States has, over the years, used a carrot-stick approach with the continent, dangling humanitarian aid for alignment with the United States policies and ideologies and sanctions for derelictions (my words, not hers).

    She highlighted the positive impact of some of these policies like the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), which I had not heard of prior to her mentioning it but has yielded interesting returns for Nigeria and the U.S. She went on to caution against the U.S limiting diplomatic relations with Africa to a strategic competition to simply be one-up over China.

    Then she said something that got me thinking really hard. She talked about the United States giving Africa agency. In fairness to her, I do not remember the full statement she made and her points of view were largely refreshing to hear but my mind went off on a tangent, pondering a question, “Will the USA ever really accept Africa’s agency, even when we do not agree with them?”

    The truth is that Africa does not need any country or ‘superpower’ to give it agency. Absolutely not! Africa is made up of sovereign nations who already have agency and while these nations may not act like it as they go cap-in-hand seeking foreign aid, this is a fact.

    All of this made me wonder if it was 1884-1885 all over again- the Berlin Conference that ended with the partitioning of Africa and rules for its conquest.

    Why would nations so far removed make decisions for a whole continent? Why does Africa have to be a pawn in a scheme that it has no business with? Why is there even a conversation about strengthening relations with Africa on the basis of having an advantage over another nation?

    The goal of this article is not to point accusatory fingers at the United States or China. After all, some of these humanitarian efforts have truly improved certain communities, albeit at a great cost. More so, as our people say, when you point one finger, the others point back at you. What have our leaders done to reposition the continent? How has the continent looked inward to build itself?

    The questions abound but I believe this is the start. There are so many development organizations in Africa, but how many of them are thinking of systemic change rather than merely providing direct service?

    Do not misunderstand me: direct service is important in bridging immediate gaps to improve the quality of life in various communities. Nonetheless, if we are going to initiate long-term change then we should be thinking of systems change, policy advocacy, looking at the big picture and laying the building blocks for posterity.

    Irrespective of the sectors you may be working in- governance, health, education, environment etc.- as you provide services for the ‘now’, you must also have a bird’s eye view of how to improve your community for the long run and eliminate the factors that perpetuate the status quo.

    With the expertise you have in your local context, you should be the one directing even international grantmakers on how best to engage communities. This is the concept of localization, that I wrote about here. This is why collaboration and coalition-building in the development space is important. Development work is not a competition even though grantmaking has made it seem that way.

    Ultimately, Africa needs to stand up for itself. There is no one coming to save us. Otherwise, we will sit by, twiddle our thumbs and find ourselves back in 1884.

    Angela Umoru-David is a creative social impact advocate whose experience cuts across journalism, program design and corporate/development communications, and aims to capture a plurality of views that positively influence the African narrative

    © Inter Press Service (2023) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service

    [ad_2]

    Global Issues

    Source link

  • Recognising Human Rights Defenders as Remarkable Agents of Positive Change

    Recognising Human Rights Defenders as Remarkable Agents of Positive Change

    [ad_1]

    • Opinion by Olive Moore (dublin, ireland)
    • Inter Press Service

    DUBLIN, Ireland, Jul 05 (IPS) – In recent years, the global landscape for human rights defenders (HRDs) has become more difficult and complex, with both new and heightened challenges. With hundreds of defenders killed every year, the scale and magnitude of threats faced by HRDs is unprecedented.

    And our response to this is severely lacking. Authoritarian and repressive forces are ever more emboldened by a permissive international environment, which fails to protect HRDs and hold aggressors to account.

    Civic space restrictions, conflict and crises, climate crisis, technological threats, rising authoritarianism and anti-gender policies all significantly affect the work, safety and well-being of HRDs.

    But thankfully, there is a flipside to this grim panorama. I recently had the privilege of spending some time with five HRDs who are among those leading the charge against these sobering trends. Courageously, they are stepping up to these challenges, to fight for their space, to champion collective rights and to stand for a better, more just world.

    The five HRDs were visiting Dublin as the recipients of an annual award Front Line Defenders has been presenting to HRDs from all over the world since 2005. The recipients, from each of the major world regions, are among those most at risk for their peaceful work in defense of human rights.

    In all cases, they demonstrate a steadfast commitment to the communities they support and represent. They offer inspiration for our times, and give us all reason to continue to care, to stand together in solidarity and to speak out and act.

    I would like to highlight some of their invaluable contributions to the greater good.

    Our Africa winner, Olivier Ndoole Bahemuke, is a leader among environmental and land defenders in Democratic Republic of the Congo, and one of the most trusted advocates on behalf of communities impacted by land grabs, trafficking, and illegal resource extraction activities.

    Known in North Kivu province as the “Green lawyer,” he is an ardent defender of the rights of communities and the environment in Virunga National Park and areas around Goma. He has faced death threats, been beaten to the point of hospitalisation and faced ongoing persecution for this work.

    Our Americas winner, Segundo Ordóñez, an Afro-descendant human rights defender from Ecuador, is one of the most visible faces and the community representative in the two legal proceedings brought against the multinational company Furukawa Plantaciones C. A. and the State of Ecuador. The cases have focused on how workers on abacá (Manila hemp) plantations suffer labour exploitation as they farm the raw materials in conditions of modern slavery.

    From Asia and the Pacific, Jeany ‘Rose’ Hayahay is a woman human rights defender based in Mindanao, the Philippines. Since 2019, she has been the spokesperson of the Save Our Schools Network (SOS Network), a coalition of child-focused NGOs, church-based groups and other stakeholders advocating for children’s right to education in Mindanao, particularly in the context of militarisation and attacks on schools.

    Rose is consistently red-tagged and monitored as a leader, facing reprisals and threats, both directly and indirectly. She is at high risk of being killed, arrested or imprisoned yet continues to lead at the forefront with determination and courage.

    Our Europe and Central Asia winner, Digital Security Lab Ukraine, represented by their executive director Vita Volodovska is a team of specialists in the field of digital security and internet freedom.

    Amid the dangers of Russia’s full-scale invasion of their country, they help Ukrainian journalists, human rights defenders and public activists solve problems with digital security, as well as promote the realisation of human rights on the internet by influencing government policy in the field of digital rights.

    And, last but not least, our Middle East and North Africa winner, Hala Ahed, from Jordan is one of the few women human rights lawyers in her country, who has worked with a number of human rights and feminist organisations to defend women’s rights, workers’ rights, and the freedoms of opinion, expression and peaceful assembly in Jordan.

    Despite her vital work and advocacy, Hala has endured various forms of intimidation and harassment, including facing threats and being summoned multiple times by the Jordanian General Intelligence Directorate.

    These five HRDs are remarkable agents of positive change – representing our best chance to withstand, counter and find solutions to the significant challenges we face today.

    However, they all face tremendous personal risk because of their human rights work – with ongoing threats to their security, well-being and reputations and the safety of their families. As we met with diplomats, dignitaries and like-minded organisations in Dublin and Brussels, our Award winners told us about the cost to them and their families and communities, and the huge personal sacrifice they make.

    In some cases, they literally put their lives on the line to continue with their crucial work in defense of human rights; in others, they have been labelled “terrorists”; organisations they support have been criminalised; or their family members have faced threats and abduction.

    It is a fate that is reflective of our wider work to protect human rights defenders – in 2022, Front Line Defenders supported 2,675 HRDs and 404 organisations at risk in over 140 countries – including in some very challenging contexts of armed conflict and crises.

    One part of the Front Line Defenders Award is about recognition for and solidarity with these defenders, for whom the limelight brings a level of international attention and protection. This is important, but this is only only part of what HRDs require for their protection, and for their human rights work to thrive. They also need concerted political action.

    That is why, as Front Line Defenders, we will continue to work directly with HRDs to advocate with governments, international institutions and corporations, to ensure that the crucial work HRDs do to advance human rights and justice is valued and that as individuals they are respected and protected.

    Olive Moore is Interim Director of Front Line Defenders

    IPS UN Bureau


    Follow IPS News UN Bureau on Instagram

    © Inter Press Service (2023) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service

    [ad_2]

    Global Issues

    Source link

  • How the Security Council can Better Pursue Accountability for International Crimes Against Children

    How the Security Council can Better Pursue Accountability for International Crimes Against Children

    [ad_1]

    A young refugee boy, pictured in a temporary displacement camp in Kalak, Iraq, in June 2014. Credit: Amnesty International
    • Opinion by Janine Morna (florida usa)
    • Inter Press Service

    FLORIDA USA, Jul 03 (IPS) – Around 2018, when Anwar was 14 or 15 years old, his father, a member of IS, forced Anwar to train with the group as a young teenager. He even made Anwar watch as he inflicted brutal punishments on people who broke IS’ rules.

    The suffering was intolerable. Anwar tried to run away from his father and flee IS-controlled territory on multiple occasions. “I hated everyone,” he said.

    In 2011, as the early versions of IS began to re-emerge in Iraq, the UN was quick to document violations the armed group had committed against children. That year, the UN Secretary-General included the group in the organization’s annual report on children and armed conflict, in which perpetrators of grave violations are named and shamed. The UN is required to negotiate action plans with parties listed in the report as part of efforts to stop and prevent the violations from occurring in future.

    While the annual report is a powerful tool that prompts action in many contexts, it has had little impact on groups like IS, which are unlikely to engage in dialogue with the UN.

    Over the last 11 years, numerous parties listed in the annual report can be classified as ‘persistent perpetrators’ — armed groups and forces that have appeared in the report for more than five consecutive years, and have failed to respond to reports on the violations they have committed against children. IS has been listed in the report for the last 13 years.

    The UN Security Council has previously focused on the issue of persistent perpetrators, including by passing a resolution and holding an open debate in 2012 where they emphasized the importance of addressing violations committed by these groups and forces. It has also made efforts to promote sanctions against recalcitrant parties.

    A young refugee boy, pictured in a temporary displacement camp in Kalak, Iraq, in June 2014. Credit: Amnesty International

    Despite these initiatives, the UN Security Council and its subsidiary, the Security Council Working Group on Children and Armed Conflict (Working Group), could do much, much more to support meaningful accountability.

    Domestic prosecutions of crimes against children

    The Working Group, as the primary body carrying out the UN Security Council’s agenda on children and armed conflict, should strengthen its calls for the UN and its donors to help countries to develop and implement domestic legislation that criminalizes grave violations against children. It should also support national criminal justice systems to pursue accountability, in line with international fair trial standards.

    Today, many prosecutions of non-state perpetrators of grave violations – like IS in Iraq and Syria, and Boko Haram in Nigeria – take place in domestic counterterrorism courts which, in many cases, fail to include crimes under international law, let alone crimes against children.

    The Working Group must encourage the trial of individual members of these groups in national courts that are capable of adjudicating international crimes. Prosecutions could occur in the state where the crimes took place and, where relevant, in states that exercise universal jurisdiction – a legal principle whereby states can prosecute offenders of certain grave crimes irrespective of the location of the crime and the nationality of the perpetrator or victim.

    When trials on crimes against children take place in counterterrorism courts, the relevant authorities must enable prosecutors and judges to draw on international law, provide sufficient resources to pursue the prosecutions, and ensure defendants can exercise their full fair trial rights.

    In cases involving children associated with armed groups and forces, states should treat children who are accused of crimes during their association primarily as victims of violations of international law and not only as perpetrators, in accordance with international standards. Children should never be prosecuted for mere affiliation with an armed group or force.

    Cooperating with the International Criminal Court and other international mechanisms

    In situations where domestic legal systems are unable or unwilling to pursue prosecutions of crimes against children, the Working Group should explore opportunities to collaborate with the International Criminal Court (ICC) and other international justice mechanisms, such as the International, Impartial and Independent Mechanism (IIIM) on Syria or the Independent Investigative Mechanism for Myanmar to achieve accountability.

    This type of collaboration was envisioned when the Working Group first adopted a list of actions it could take in response to grave violations against children. Effective cooperation between international justice mechanisms is critical to achieve a measure of comprehensive justice.

    The Working Group’s engagement with the ICC has historically been limited, but it is now time to further develop connections between the two bodies. The Office of the Prosecutor for the ICC has welcomed opportunities to “strengthen cooperation with relevant actors” and earlier this year launched a public consultation to renew its policy on children that “will build upon new approaches… affect meaningful change”.

    In the past, some Working Group members have considered indicating when parties have likely committed a war crime or other crimes within the jurisdiction of the ICC. They have also explored the possibility of sharing their conclusions with the ICC, and arranging for the prosecutor of the ICC to share briefings with the Working Group.

    Ten years ago, some members of the Working Group also considered, in the absence of a UN Security Council referral, inviting states that are party to the Rome Statute to refer situations to the ICC, in which armed groups or forces have committed grave violations against children. Unfortunately, deeply divided opinions about the ICC among Council members have, in the past, limited the adoption of these recommendations.

    Children must be protected

    On July 5, the UN Security Council will host its annual Open Debate on Children and Armed Conflict. The occasion offers all UN member states an opportunity to publicly commit to efforts to broaden and strengthen accountability for violations against children.

    As a first step, member states should call for the UN Secretary General to, once again, identify persistent perpetrators in the annual reports on children and armed conflict, a practice that was stopped in 2017.

    The Council has the power to take greater action in response to some of the world’s most egregious perpetrators of crimes against children. It is unacceptable that children like Anwar should have to wait so long for justice and accountability.

    Janine Morna, is Thematics Researcher – Children, Amnesty International’s Crisis Response Programme

    *Name changed to protect identity.

    IPS UN Bureau


    Follow IPS News UN Bureau on Instagram

    © Inter Press Service (2023) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service

    [ad_2]

    Global Issues

    Source link

  • State of Asians in the UN: Need for Proactive, Inclusive & Collective Leadership

    State of Asians in the UN: Need for Proactive, Inclusive & Collective Leadership

    [ad_1]

    • Opinion by Shihana Mohamed (united nations)
    • Inter Press Service

    UNITED NATIONS, Jun 13 (IPS) – The United Nations system has an agreed leadership framework that is inclusive and respectful of all personnel and stakeholders, embracing diversity and rejecting discrimination in all its forms.

    It is collaborative, reflecting the interdependent imperatives of the UN Charter and seeking collective “as one” thinking. It is self-applied, so that UN principles and norms are embedded in all areas of work of the UN system by staff at all levels and in all functions and locations to foster broader cultural change within UN system organizations.

    The parameters of this inclusive leadership have already been clearly prescribed by the UN Charter.

    Article 1 (3) of the UN Charter asserts that one of the purposes of the UN is to promote and encourage respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion.

    Racism and racial discrimination are against the principles expressed in the UN Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and many international instruments. However, the issue of racism in the UN system is deep-rooted with many forms and dimensions.

    The report of the Secretary-General’s Task Force on Addressing Racism agrees that UN staff perceive national or ethnic origin as the primary grounds for racism and racial discrimination. Staff are reluctant to report or act against racial discrimination when they witness it because they believe nothing will happen, lack trust, or fear retaliation, suggesting a low level of solidarity with those who experience racial discrimination and a lack of faith in the mechanisms established to address this issue.

    Surveys reveal that UN personnel of Asian descent face specific forms of bias and discrimination.

    The recent review of racism and racial discrimination in the UN by the Joint Inspection Unit (JIU) – the UN’s external oversight body – finds that while there has been progress in certain parts of the UN system, racism and racial discrimination are major and under-recognized problems that require urgent system-wide responses.

    Racism and racial discrimination are widespread throughout the system and the magnitude is high, based on evidence of the prevalence, form, and effects of racism and racial discrimination.

    Article 101 (3) of the UN Charter affirms that due regard shall be paid to the importance of recruiting the staff on as wide a geographical basis as possible.

    The Asia-Pacific region is home to around 4.3 billion people, which is equivalent to 54 percent of the total world population. In the UN organizations, however, staff from Asia and the Pacific constitute only about 19 percent of staff in the Professional and higher categories.

    There is a significant lack of diversity in senior managerial positions (P-5, D-1, and D-2 levels) at the UN. The majority of senior and decision-making posts are held by staff from the global North.

    Among staff in senior positions, only 16 percent were from Asia-Pacific States as of 31 December 2020. Among promotions to senior positions, only 14.5 percent were from Asia-Pacific States during the period 2018–2020.

    The JIU review on racism found that UN staff from countries of the global South, where the population is predominantly of color, tend to be in lower, less well-paid grades and, therefore, hold less authority in decision-making than those from countries where the population is predominantly white and from the group of Western European and other States.

    This finding was corroborated by the JIU’s system-wide survey, and this issue of discrimination in seniority and authority for decision-making in the UN system emerged as a major macrostructural issue to be addressed.

    Article 8 of the UN Charter stipulates that the UN shall place no restrictions on the eligibility of men and women to participate in any capacity and under conditions of equality in its principal and subsidiary organs.

    The Universal Declaration of Human Rights also states that there can be no distinction or discrimination on the basis of gender (articles 2, 7 and 23). The Fourth World Conference on Women in 1995 in Beijing adopted a Platform for Action, including the goal of achieving overall gender equality in the staff of the UN system by 2000.

    The gender goals that were set by the Beijing Declaration 28 years ago are not being realized.

    With regard to regional representation of women in the UN system, women from Western European and other States constitute a little more than half of the population of women in the Professional category (51 percent), while women from Africa, Asia-Pacific, Eastern Europe, and Latin America and the Caribbean combined represent only 49 percent.

    Among them, 18 percent are from the Asia-Pacific region. This disparity demonstrates the inconsistencies in the balance of objectives regarding meeting gender targets and geographical representation and emphasizes that there should be a correlation between these two goals.

    Taking part in collective leadership: Role of staff interest groups

    The role of staff resource groups is most helpful in the journey towards creating a more diverse and inclusive work environment at the UN. All staff resource groups in the UN organizations are voluntary and mostly organized around the mission, purpose, mandates and objectives of the UN.

    There are many staff interest groups focusing on anti-racism, gender equality, diversity and inclusion. Such groups build bridges between staff and management as well as make connections between inequities and policies, and they play a significant role in bringing about effective change in the organizational culture.

    Towards addressing racism in the UN, the tone set by the Secretary-General António Guterres and the space presented to the UN staff interest groups to work towards driving organizational culture change are commendable.

    This approach is especially important in developing “inclusive” or “collective” leadership as established in the UN leadership model, which demands that all stakeholders play interdependent roles to achieve a collective impact system-wide.

    The JIU review on racism also promotes the importance of “collective” leadership that provides a high level of support for personnel resources and special interest groups and whereby such groups are able to leverage support for actions to address racism and racial discrimination.

    It further notes that the UN is in the initial stages and has a long way to go to develop the kind of effective leadership coalition that is critical to driving reforms to address racism and racial discrimination.

    Taking part in collective leadership: Advice to my younger self

    The UN Charter, the founding document of the UN, is an inspiring document that was signed 77 years ago. It made promises to respect each and every one of us, to reaffirm our fundamental rights and to value men and women equally. While we have achieved some progress in many areas, we still have a long way to go towards realizing the ideals enshrined in the UN Charter. Hence, I would tell my younger self that:

      • I should not be surprised when I am not treated equally by the UN and the world.
      • I should learn as early as possible to speak up if I am not treated fairly, if I am disrespected, or if my rights are violated.
      • I should talk to colleagues to share my experiences and identify any patterns of unfair treatment in the workplace.
      • I should understand that merit, along with hard work, commitment and credentials, is not enough to get into senior positions in the UN.
      • I should be taking initiative as an individual to address any discriminatory actions.
      • I should focus on more concrete and specific initiatives that would bring change in the UN.

    The sum of my experiences in the UN, together with learning that many colleagues in the UN system were also having similar experiences, led me to realize the importance of a staff interest group for personnel from Asia and the Pacific, even though this took years to come into being.

    Taking part in collective leadership: Solutions to overcome barriers to Asian talent

    It is important to take part in the collective leadership approach in order to explore solutions to support overcoming barriers to Asian talent in the workplace, within and outside the UN system.

      (1) If there is no staff resource group representing the Asian community in the Organization, we should create one immediately.

    UN-ANDI, established in 2021, is the first ever effort to bring together a diverse group of personnel from Asia and the Pacific (nationality/origin/descent) in the UN system.

      (2) We must speak up loudly and proudly as Asians, as members of an interest/resource group or network. It should be done in a focused way, with facts, trends, and patterns to bring global, regional, national, and local attention to our issues and concerns. This was emphasized by Ambassador Anwarul Chowdhury, former Permanent Representative of Bangladesh to the UN and former UN Under-Secretary-General, at UN-ANDI’s first public event on 2021 UN Day.

    UN-ANDI is currently finalizing its report on racism and racial discrimination in the UN system faced by personnel of Asian descent or origin based on its survey conducted in summer 2022.

      (3) Once we have a staff interest/resource group, it is important to explore and/or create opportunities to collaborate and complement our mutual goals towards creating a more diverse, equitable, and inclusive organizational culture.

    UN-ANDI works closely with the UN Staff Union in its efforts towards combating racism. It also promotes a collaborative spirit with other networks and institutions with similar objectives, within and outside the UN. Since its inception, UN-ANDI has been collaborating with Asia Society to promote mutual understanding and stronger partnerships among peoples and cultures within and outside Asia.

    Shihana Mohamed, a founding member, one of the Coordinators of UN-ANDI and a Sri Lankan national, is a Human Resources Policies Officer at the International Civil Service Commission (ICSC).

    Please email [email protected] to connect and/or collaborate with UN-ANDI.

    This article is based on the presentation made by the author, in her personal capacity, as a panelist in the discussion on “State of the AAPI Community in the U.S. and the Need and Impact of Proactive, Inclusive Leadership” at Asia Society’s 2023 Global Talent, Diversity and Inclusion Symposium on 17 May 2023.

    IPS UN Bureau


    Follow IPS News UN Bureau on Instagram

    © Inter Press Service (2023) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service

    [ad_2]

    Global Issues

    Source link

  • Carbon Tax: A Surprisingly Simple Contribution to Fight Climate Change

    Carbon Tax: A Surprisingly Simple Contribution to Fight Climate Change

    [ad_1]

    Carbon taxes can incorporate the environmental cost of doing business to a product’s final price. Credit: Bigstock
    • Opinion by Tatiana Falcao
    • Inter Press Service

    May 29 (IPS) – Reducing carbon emissions is critical for combating climate change. And one effective way to do this is through the use of carbon taxes.

    Carbon taxes are among some of the most efficient policies in pricing carbon, particularly if employed at “choke points” – specific points in the production or supply chain where carbon taxes can be applied – at the upstream level. This is because it allows the process to reach the whole of the economy, without the need to focus on certain industries or sectors.

    An upstream carbon tax is simple to administer and can impact both the formal and the informal economies, a point which is particularly relevant for Africa where most countries are either middle- and low-income countries.

    Carbon taxes can incorporate the environmental cost of doing business to a product’s final price. The environmental cost of doing business ultimately translates into the cost of the emissions released and waste produced because of a manufacturing process. That cost has been largely avoided or undervalued by corporates.

    The lack of a robust tax policy framework that accounts for the environmental damage resulting from private investment means that companies have ultimately been free riding on the environment and society has been paying for that price by now being confronted with the adverse effects of climate change.

    Failure to account for the environmental cost of doing business through a carbon tax also provides for the indirect subsidization of carbon intensive products. These products are at a competitive advantage because they have been using “standard” technologies and are part of the routine industrial functions.

    A shift in the way society consumes and relies on energy products will require also a change in the valuation of energy forms. By internalizing the carbon equivalent externality via a carbon tax, a government is capable of equalizing consumption patterns by using cardon laden fuel sources as the pricing benchmark.

    As a result, every additional ton of carbon in a particular fuel source is accounted for in the final price. Green and brown energy sources can hence compete in parity of conditions, in an environment where the least carbon intensive product receives the lowest price.

    Consumers sensitive to the price difference, will seek to consume more of the low carbon fuels and products, fostering the green transition process. The mechanics are more pronounced in Africa where the proportion of low-income consumers is highest and therefore even a small price difference can cause a change to a consumption pattern.

    The Africa Tax Administration Forum (ATAF) has recently released a carbon tax policy brief to guide African governments on how to best apply a carbon tax policy that is capable of conferring a whole of government approach. By this we mean how governments can act to establish a carbon price that equally burdens all segments of the economy.

    The policy brief explores the key features in the design of a carbon tax that can meet the dual objective of raising revenues while conferring a positive effect on the environment. Beyond carbon tax, the brief also discusses the role of supplementary policies in achieving climate goals. For example, there is ample discussion concerning the need for countries to assess and eventually eliminate harmful fossil fuel subsidies, in line with the commitments assumed by African countries under the Glasgow Pact, the role of implicit carbon pricing in complementing explicit pricing approaches, and general remarks on measures to alleviate concerns around potential competitive disadvantages triggered from the implementation of a carbon tax.

    African countries are also facing the increasing use of Border Carbon Adjustment (BCA) measures, like the European Union’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM). These measures add a carbon price to products imported into a country if the carbon price has not been added in the country of origin or production. This means that, if there is no carbon price in the country of origin, the destination country will add a carbon fee at the border upon import.

    The EU is still establishing the CBAM but its price is expected to be around EUR 100 t/CO2e, based on the price set by the European Emissions Trading Scheme. African countries that do not have a carbon fee and export these products to the EU may lose money because of the price difference. Other countries, like the United States, Canada, Korea, and Taiwan, are also considering similar fees to account for the environmental cost of doing business.

    The world is changing, and we need to consider the environmental costs of producing and transporting goods. This new normal means that the price of products will include the environmental costs. African governments can lead the way by introducing policies that include carbon taxes to promote sustainable development and reduce our impact on the environment.

    It’s time to act!

    Tatiana Falcão is a Ph.D in environmental taxation and a consultant to African Tax Authorities Forum (ATAF). ATAF’s carbon policy brief can be found here: https://bit.ly/3OH1CyH

    © Inter Press Service (2023) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service

    [ad_2]

    Global Issues

    Source link

  • Race to Zero in Asia and Pacific: Our Hopes in the Climate Fight

    Race to Zero in Asia and Pacific: Our Hopes in the Climate Fight

    [ad_1]

    Carbon emission is one of the major causes for climate change. Countries should accelerate their effort to achieve carbon neutrality. Credit: Pixabay / Peggychoucair
    • Opinion by Armida Salsiah Alisjahbana (bangkok, thailand)
    • Inter Press Service
    • Heads of State, ministers, senior government officials and other key stakeholders will convene in Bangkok from 15 to 19 May at the 79th session of the Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP) to explore policy options and foster ambitious climate action towards net-zero pathways. Ahead of the 79th session, ESCAP will also launch its theme study The Race to Net Zero: Accelerating Climate Action in Asia and the Pacific. The study sets out the transformations that are needed for the region to transition to a net-zero carbon future in support of sustainable development. It provides an outline of the regional context of climate change and identifies policies and actions that could be taken in various sectors of the economy to support the global climate agenda.

    BANGKOK, Thailand, May 09 (IPS) – The latest synthesis report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change makes for grim reading: Every fraction of a degree of warming comes with escalated threats, from deadly heatwaves to severe hurricanes and droughts, affecting all economies and communities.

    It is a reality that the people of Asia and the Pacific know only too well. “The worst April heatwaves in Asian history” last month was just a taste of the worsening climate impacts we will continue to face in the years to come.

    Our latest report highlights that the sea level is creeping up in parts of the region at a slightly higher rate than the global mean, leaving low-lying atolls at existential threat. Annual socioeconomic loss due to climate change is mounting and likely to double in the worst-case climate scenario.

    Inequity is yet another threat as climate change sweeps across the region. Asia and the Pacific already accounts for more than half of global greenhouse gas emissions and the share is growing.

    But there is another picture of hope in our region: 39 countries have committed to carbon neutrality and net zero between 2050 and 2060. The cost of renewable energy is falling almost everywhere, with installed capacity growing more than three-fold in the past decade.

    Electric vehicles are entering the market en masse as countries such as China, India, Japan, the Republic of Korea and Thailand have made electric mobility a priority.

    This momentum needs to accelerate like a bullet train. Because nothing short of a breakthrough in hard-to-abate sectors will give us a good chance of stopping catastrophic global warming.

    Accelerating a just and inclusive energy transition

    The recent energy crisis has kicked renewable energy into a new phase of even faster growth thanks to its energy security benefits. There is opportunity now to leverage this momentum and turn it into a revolutionary moment.

    Cross-border electricity grids can be the game changer. ESCAP has simulated different scenarios for grid connectivity and scaling up renewables. It shows that a green power corridor, cross-border power grid integration utilizing renewables, can help to remove the last hurdles of the transition. We are working with countries to chart a path to improved regional power grid connectivity through cooperation.

    Achieving low-carbon mobility and logistics

    The exceptional growth of electric vehicles has proved that electric mobility is a smart investment. And it is one that will help stave off carbon dioxide emissions from transport, which has stubbornly increased almost by 2 per cent annually the past two decades.

    Through the Regional Cooperation Mechanism on Low Carbon Transport, we are working with the public and private sector to lock in the changeover to low-carbon mobility, clean energy technologies and logistics.

    This is complemented by peer learning and experience sharing under the Asia-Pacific Initiative on Electric Mobility to accelerate the penetration of electric vehicles and upgrading public transport fleets.

    Building low-carbon industries through climate-smart trade and investment

    The net zero transition is not complete without decarbonizing the industrial sector. The region accounts for nearly three quarters of global greenhouse gas emissions in manufacturing and construction.

    Binding climate considerations in regional trade agreements can be a powerful tool. While climate-related provisions have entered regional trade agreements involving Asian and Pacific economies, they offer few concrete and binding commitments. To unlock further benefits, they will need to be broader in scope, deeper in stringency and more precise in obligations.

    As foreign investment goes green, it should also go where it is needed the most. It has not been the case for any of the least developed countries and small island developing States in the region.

    Financing the transition

    The transition can be only possible by investing in low- and zero-emission technologies and industries. Current domestic and international financial flows fall well short of the needed amount.

    The issuance of green, social and sustainability bonds is rapidly growing, reaching $210 billion in 2021 but were dominated by developed and a few developing countries. Both public and private financial institutions need to be incentivized to invest in new green technologies and make the uptake of such technologies less risky.

    Linking actions and elevating ambitions

    The code red to go green is ever so clear. Every government needs to raise their stake in this crisis. Every business needs to transform. Every individual needs to act. A journey to net zero should accelerate with a fresh look at our shared purpose.

    At ESCAP, we are working to bring together the pieces and build the missing links at the regional level to support the net-zero transition work at the national level. The upcoming Commission session will bring countries together for the first time in an intergovernmental setting – to identify common accelerators for climate action and to chart a more ambitious pathway.

    This is the start of an arduous journey that requires cooperation, understanding and determination. And I believe we have what it takes to get there together.
    Armida Salsiah Alisjahbana is Under-Secretary-General of the UN and Executive Secretary of the Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP)

    https://www.unescap.org/news/accelerating-climate-action-forefront-upcoming-regional-un-assembly for more information of the CS79 meeting.

    IPS UN Bureau


    Follow IPS News UN Bureau on Instagram

    © Inter Press Service (2023) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service

    [ad_2]

    Global Issues

    Source link

  • Reshaping Multilateralism in Times of Crises

    Reshaping Multilateralism in Times of Crises

    [ad_1]

    Indigenous women gather before an equality forum in Mexico City, Mexico. Credit: UN Women/Paola Garcia
    • Opinion by Jens Martens (bonn, germany)
    • Inter Press Service

    BONN, Germany, May 05 (IPS) – The world is in permanent crisis mode. In addition to the consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic and the triple planetary crisis of climate change, biodiversity loss and pollution, the war in Ukraine and other violent conflicts, a worldwide cost of living crisis and an intensified debt crisis in more and more countries of the global South are affecting large parts of humanity.

    Inter-State wars, terrorism, divided collective security, and peacekeeping limitations remain the same challenges facing multilateralism as when the UN was founded 76 years ago, Secretary-General António Guterres told the Security Council December 2022.

    Scientists are now even warning of the risk of a global polycrisis, “a single, macro-crisis of interconnected, runaway failures of Earth’s vital natural and social systems that irreversibly degrades humanity’s prospects”.

    Human rights, and especially women’s rights, are under attack in many countries. Nationalism, sometimes coupled with increasing authoritarianism, has been on the rise worldwide. Rich countries of the global North continue to practice inhumane migration policies toward refugees.

    At the same time, they pursue self-serving and short-sighted “my country first” policies, whether in hoarding vaccines and subsidizing their domestic pharmaceutical industries, or in the race for global natural gas reserves. This has undermined multilateral solutions and lead to a growing atmosphere of mistrust between countries.

    “Trust is in short supply”, UN Secretary-General António Guterres told the Security Council in August 2022. Consequently, Member States defined one of the main purposes of the Summit of the Future in September 2024 to be “restoring trust among Member States”.

    António Guterres had proposed to hold such a Summit of the Future, which he described as “a once-in-a-generation opportunity to reinvigorate global action, recommit to fundamental principles, and further develop the frameworks of multilateralism so they are fit for the future”.

    The Summit offers an opportunity, at least in theory, to respond to the current crises with far-reaching political agreements and institutional reforms. However, this presupposes that the governments do not limit themselves to symbolic action and voluntary commitments but take binding decisions – also and above all on the provision of (financial) resources for their implementation.

    In this context, the principle of Common but Differentiated Responsibilities (CBDR) remains absolutely valid. Without such decisions, it will hardly be possible to regain trust between countries.

    The G77 emphasized in a statement on 20 April 2023, “since the Summit of the Future is meant to turbo-charge the SDGs, it must address comprehensively the issue of Means of Implementation for the 2030 Agenda, which includes, but is not limited to, financing, technology transfer and capacity building.”

    Of course, it would be naive to believe that the risk of a global polycrisis could be overcome with a single summit meeting. But the series of upcoming global summits, from the SDG Summit 2023 and the Summit of the Future 2024 to the 4th Financing for Development Conference and the second World Social Summit 2025, can certainly contribute to shaping the political discourse on the question of which structural changes are necessary to respond to the global crises and to foster multilateral cooperation based on solidarity.

    Our new report Spotlight on Global Multilateralism aims to contribute to this process. It offers critical analyses and presents recommendations for strengthening democratic multilateral structures and policies.

    The report covers a broad range of issue areas, from peace and common security, reforms of the global financial architecture, calls for a New Social Contract and inclusive digital future, to the rights of future generations, and the transformation of education systems.

    The report also identifies some of the built-in deficiencies and weaknesses of current multilateral structures and approaches. This applies, inter alia, to concepts of corporate-influenced multistakeholderism, for instance in the area of digital cooperation.

    On the other hand, the report explores alternatives to purely intergovernmental multilateralism, such as the increased role of local and regional governments and their workers and trade unions at the international level.

    Seventy-five years after the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a key challenge is to create mechanisms to ensure that human rights – as well as the rights of future generations and the rights of nature – are no longer subordinated to the vested interests of powerful economic elites in multilateral decision-making.

    Timid steps and the constant repetition of the agreed language of the past will not be enough. More fundamental and systemic changes in policies, governance and mindsets are necessary to regain trust and to foster multilateral cooperation based on solidarity and international law.

    Jens Martens is Executive Director of Global Policy Forum Europe

    IPS UN Bureau


    Follow IPS News UN Bureau on Instagram

    © Inter Press Service (2023) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service

    [ad_2]

    Global Issues

    Source link

  • Africa, Now Squeezed to the Bones

    Africa, Now Squeezed to the Bones

    [ad_1]

    The IMF has made some encouraging improvements in paying attention to social protection, health, and education, but it needs to do much more to avoid, in its own words, “repeating past mistakes”, says new report. Credit: Charles Mpaka/IPS
    • by Baher Kamal (madrid)
    • Inter Press Service

    MADRID, Apr 19 (IPS) – As many as 45 African countries –out of the Continent’s 54 nations–, all of them grouped in what is known as Sub-Saharan Africa, have now been further squeezed to their bones, as funding shrinks to lowest ever levels, and as a portion of the so-called aid goes back to the pockets of rich donor countries.

    See what happens.

    In its April 2023 World Economic Outlook, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) talks about a rocky recovery. In its reporting on that, it lowers global economic growth outlook as ‘fog thickens.’

    It says that the road to global economic recovery is “getting rocky.’ And that while inflation is slowly falling, economic growth remains ‘historically low,’ and that the financial risks have risen.

    Squeezed

    Well. In its April Outlook, the IMF devotes a chapter to Sub-Saharan Africa, titled “The Big Funding Squeeze”.

    It says that growth in Sub-Saharan Africa is expected to slow to 3.6 percent as a “big funding squeeze”, tied to “the drying up of aid and access to private finance,” hits the region in this second consecutive year of an aggregate decline.

    If no measures are taken, “this shortage of funding may force countries to reduce fiscal resources for critical development like health, education, and infrastructure, holding the region back from developing its true potential.”

    Some arguments

    According to the IMF:

    • Public debt and inflation are at levels not seen in decades, with double-digit inflation present in half of countries—eroding household purchasing power and striking at the most vulnerable.
    • The rapid tightening of global monetary policy has raised borrowing costs for Sub-Saharan countries both on domestic and international markets.
    • All Sub-Saharan African frontier markets have been cut off from market access since spring 2022.
    • The US dollar effective exchange rate reached a 20-year high last year, increasing the burden of dollar-denominated debt service payments. Interest payments as a share of revenue have doubled for the average SSA country over the past decade.
    • With shrinking aid budgets and reduced inflows from partners, this is leading to a big funding squeeze for the region.

    The giant monetary body says that the lack of financing affects a region that is already struggling with elevated macroeconomic imbalances.

    Unprecedented debts and inflation

    In a previous article: The Poor, Squeezed by 10 Trillion Dollars in External Debts, IPS reported on the external debt of the world’s low and middle-income countries, which at the end of 2021 totalled 9 trillion US dollars, more than double the amount a decade ago.

    Such debts are expected to increase by an additional 1.1 trillion US dollars in 2023, thus totalling 10.1 trillion US dollars.

    Now, the IMF reports that “public debt and inflation are at levels not seen in decades, with double-digit inflation present in about half of the countries—eroding household purchasing power and striking at the most vulnerable.”

    In short, “Sub-Saharan Africa stands to lose the most in a severely fragmented world and stresses the need for building resilience.”

    Like many other major international bodies, the IMF indirectly blames African Governments for non adopting the “right” policies and encourages further investments in the region, while some insist that the way out is digitalisation, robotisation, etcetera.

    The big contradiction

    Here, a question arises: are all IMF and other monetary-oriented bodies’ recommendations and ‘altruistic’ advice the solution to the deepening collapse of a whole continent, home to around 1,4 billion human beings?

    Not really, or at least not necessarily. A global movement of people who are fighting inequality to end poverty and injustice, grounded in the commitment to the universality of human rights: Oxfam, on 13 April 2023 said that multilateral lender’s role in helping to insulate people in low- and middle-income countries from economic crises is “incoherent and inadequate.”

    For example, “for every $1 the IMF encourages a set of poor countries to spend on public goods, it has told them to cut four times more through austerity measures.”

    Countries forced to cut public funding

    Then the global civil society movement explains that an important IMF initiative to shore up poor people in the Global South from the worst effects of its own austerity measures and the global economic crisis “is in tatters.”

    New analysis by Oxfam finds that the IMF’s “Social Spending Floors” targets designed to help borrowing governments protect minimum levels of social spending— are proving largely powerless against its own austerity policies that instead force countries to cut public funding.

    “The IMF’s ‘Social Spending Floors’ encouraged raising inflation-adjusted social spending by about $1 billion over the second year of its loan programs compared to the first year, across the 13 countries that participated where data is available.”

    IMF’s austerity policiesBy comparison, the IMF’s austerity drive has required most of those same governments to rip away over $5 billion worth of state spending over the same period, warns Oxfam.

    “This suggests the IMF was four times more effective in getting governments to cut their budgets than it is in guaranteeing minimum social investments,” said incoming Oxfam International interim Executive Director, Amitabh Behar.

    “This is deeply worrying and disappointing, given that the IMF had itself urged countries to build back better after the pandemic by investing in social protection, health and education,” Behar said.

    “Among the 2 billion people who are suffering most from the effects of austerity cuts and social spending squeezes, we know it is women who always bear the brunt.”

    A fig leaf for austerity?

    In its new report “IMF Social Spending Floors. A Fig Leaf for Austerity?,” Oxfam analysed these components in all IMF loan programs agreed with 17 low- and middle-income countries in 2020 and 2021.

    Oxfam’s report: “The Assault of Austerity” found inconsistencies between countries. There is no standard or transparent way of tracking progress and many of the minimum targets were inadequate.

    The IMF has made some encouraging improvements in paying attention to social protection, health, and education, the report goes on, but it needs to do much more to avoid, in its own words, “repeating past mistakes”.

    The farce of aid budget

    In another report titled “Obscene amount of aid is going back into the pockets of rich countries,” Oxfam informed that on 12 April 2023 the Development Assistance Committee of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. (OECD DAC) published its preliminary figures on the amount of development aid for 2022.

    According to the OECD report, in 2022, official development assistance (ODA) by member countries of the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) amounted to USD 204.0 billion.

    This total included USD 201.4 billion in the form of grants, loans to sovereign entities, debt relief and contributions to multilateral institutions (calculated on a grant-equivalent basis); USD 0.8 billion to development-oriented private sector instrument (PSI) vehicles and USD 1.7 billion in the form of net loans and equities to private companies operating in ODA-eligible countries (calculated on a cash flow basis), it adds.

    Total ODA in 2022 rose by 13.6% in real terms compared to 2021, says the OECD.

    “This was the fourth consecutive year ODA surpassed its record levels, and one of the highest growth rates recorded in the history of ODA…”

    The rich pocketing ‘obscene’ percentage of aid
    In response, Marc Cohen, Oxfam’s aid expert, said: “In 2022, rich countries pocketed an obscene 14.4 percent of aid. They robbed the world’s poorest people of a much-needed lifeline in a time of multiple crises.

    “Donors have turned their aid pledges into a farce. Not only have they undelivered more than 193 billion dollars, but they also funnelled nearly 30 billion dollars into their own pockets by mislabeling what counts as aid”.

    Rich countries inflating their aid budgets

    “They continue to inflate their aid budgets by including vaccine donations, the costs of hosting refugees, and by profiting off development aid loans. It is time for a system with teeth to hold them to account and make sure aid goes to the poorest people in the poorest countries.”

    © Inter Press Service (2023) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service

    [ad_2]

    Global Issues

    Source link

  • US Legislators Strip China of Developing Nation Status

    US Legislators Strip China of Developing Nation Status

    [ad_1]

    • by Thalif Deen (united nations)
    • Inter Press Service

    UNITED NATIONS, Apr 03 (IPS) – As signs of a new Cold War are fast emerging at the United Nations, the US continues its war of words with the People’s Republic of China (PRC).

    The rivalry, which extends from Russia and Taiwan to Iran and Myanmar – where the UN’s two permanent members are on opposite sides of ongoing political or military conflicts– has now triggered a battle on semantics.

    Is China, described as the world’s second largest economy ranking next to the US, really a “developing nation”?

    The US House of Representative unanimously passed a bill March 27 directing the Secretary of State Antony Blinken to strip the PRC of its “developing country” status in international organizations

    Titled “PRC Is Not a Developing Country Act” — the bill cleared the House in an overwhelming 415-0 vote. The legislation reads: “It should be the policy of the United States—

    (1) to oppose the labeling or treatment of the People’s Republic of China as a developing country in any treaty or other international agreement to which the United States is a party;

    (2) to oppose the labeling or treatment of the People’s Republic of China as a developing country in each international organization of which the United States is a member; and

    (3) to pursue the labeling or treatment of the People’s Republic of China as an upper middle-income country, high income country, or developed country in each international organization of which the United States is a member”.

    At the United Nations, China is closely allied with the 137-member Group of 77 (G77), the largest single coalition of “developing countries” (a group created in 1964 with 77 members).

    Since China is not a formal member of the G77, the group describes itself either as “The G77 and China” or “The G77 plus China.”

    Ambassador Anwarul K. Chowdhury, a former Permanent Representative of Bangladesh to the UN and a former UN Under-Secretary-General, told IPS the defining of a developing country is a complex challenge.

    “There is no established framework or charter for defining a “developing country,” he noted

    According to well-respected economist Jeffrey Sachs, the current divide between the developed and developing world is largely a phenomenon of the 20th century. Some economists emphasize that the binary labeling of countries is “neither descriptive nor explanatory”.

    For the UN system, the G77, which provides the collective negotiating platform of the countries of the South, is in reality synonymous with nations which are identified as “developing countries, least developed countries (LDCs), landlocked developing countries and small island developing states” (SIDS).

    “They are all sub-groupings of developing countries and belong to the G-77, he pointed out.

    Outlining the group’s history, he said, the G-77 was established in 1964 by seventy-seven developing countries, signatories of the “Joint Declaration” issued at the end of the first session of the UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) in Geneva.

    Although members of the G-77 have increased to 134 countries, the original name was retained due to its historic significance. Developing countries tend to have some characteristics in common, often due to their histories or geographies, said Ambassador Chowdhury, Chairman of the Administrative and Budgetary Committee (Fifth Committee) of the UN General Assembly in 1997-98 and Chair of the Group of 27, working group of G-77, in 1982-83.

    In October 1997, he said, China joined the G-77 while keeping its special identity by proposing the nomenclature as “G-77 and China”. China aligns its positions on the global economic and social issues with G-77 positions for negotiating purposes.

    Being the largest negotiating group in the United Nations, and in view of the mutuality of their common concerns, G-77 is not expected to agree to separate China from the current collaborative arrangements.

    “And more so, if the pressure comes from the US delegation, in view of the recent resolution of the House of Representatives of the US Congress, to take away the categorization of China as a developing country”, declared Ambassador Chowdhury.

    In a World Bank Data Blog, Tariq Khokhar, Global Data Editor & Senior Data Scientist and Umar Serajuddin, Manager, Development Data Group, at the World Bank, point out that the IMF, in the “World Economic Outlook (WEO)” currently classify 37 countries as “Advanced Economies” and all others are considered “Emerging Market and Developing Economies” according to the WEO Statistical Annex.”

    The institution notes that “this classification is not based on strict criteria, economic or otherwise” and that it’s done in order to “facilitate analysis by providing a reasonably meaningful method of organizing data.”

    The United Nations has no formal definition of developing countries, but still uses the term for monitoring purposes and classifies as many as 159 countries as developing, the authors argue.

    Under the UN’s current classification, all of Europe and Northern America along with Japan, Australia and New Zealand are classified as developed regions, and all other regions are developing.

    The UN maintains a list of “Least Developed Countries” which are defined by accounting for GNI per capita as well as measures of human capital and economic vulnerability.

    “While we can’t find the first instance of “developing world” being used, what it colloquially refers to — the group of countries that fare relatively and similarly poorly in social and economic measures — hasn’t been consistently or precisely defined, and this “definition” hasn’t been updated.”

    “The World Bank has for many years referred to “low and middle income countries” as “developing countries” for convenience in publications, but even if this definition was reasonable in the past, it’s worth asking if it has remained so and if a more granular definition is warranted.”

    In its legislation, the US House of Representatives says “not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of State shall submit to the appropriate committees of Congress a report identifying all current treaty negotiations in which—

    (a) Any international organization of which the United States and the People’s Republic of China are both current member states, the Secretary, in coordination with the heads of other Federal agencies and departments as needed, shall pursue—

    (1) changing the status of the People’s Republic of China from developing country to upper middle income country, high income country, or developed country if a mechanism exists in such organization to make such a change in status;

    (2) proposing the development of a mechanism described in paragraph (1) to change the status of the People’s Republic of China in such organization from developing country to developed country; or

    (3) regardless of efforts made pursuant to paragraphs (1) and (2), working to ensure that the People’s Republic of China does not receive preferential treatment or assistance within the organization as a result of it having the status of a developing country.

    (b) The President may waive the application of subsection (a) with respect to any international organization if the President notifies the appropriate committees of Congress, not later than 10 days before the date on which the waiver shall take effect, that such a waiver is in the national interests of the United States.

    Speaking during the debate, Representative Young Kim (Republican of California) said: “The People’s Republic of China is the world’s second largest economy, accounting for 18.6 percent of the global economy.”

    “Their economy is second only to that of the United States. The United States is treated as a developed country, so should PRC,” Kim said. “And is also treated as a high-income country in treaties and international organizations, so China should also be treated as a developed country.”

    “However, the PRC is classified as a developing country, and they’re using this status to game the system and hurt countries that are truly in need,” she added.

    Elaborating further, Ambassador Chowdhury said the World Bank, as a part of the Bretton Woods institutions, classifies the world’s economies into four groups, based on gross national income per capita: high, upper-middle, lower-middle, and low income countries.

    In 2015, the World Bank declared that the “developing/developed world categorization” had become less relevant and that they will phase out the use of that descriptor.

    Instead, their reports will present data aggregations for regions and income groups.

    The World Trade Organisation (WTO) accepts any country’s claim of itself being “developing”.

    He said certain countries that have become “developed” in the last 20 years by almost all economic metrics, still wants to be classified as “developing country”, as it entitles them to a preferential treatment at the WTO – countries such as Brunei, Kuwait, Qatar, Singapore, and the United Arab Emirates.

    The term “Global South“, used by some as an alternative term to developing countries, began to be mentioned more widely since about 2004.

    The Global South refers to these countries’ interconnected histories of colonialism, neo-imperialism, and differential economic and social change through which large inequalities in living standards, life expectancy, and access to resources are maintained.

    “Most of humanity resides in the Global South,” declared Ambassador Chowdhury.

    IPS UN Bureau Report


    Follow IPS News UN Bureau on Instagram

    © Inter Press Service (2023) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service

    [ad_2]

    Global Issues

    Source link

  • Israel Today and A Possible Israel Tomorrow

    Israel Today and A Possible Israel Tomorrow

    [ad_1]

    Israel’s separation barrier as seen from Al Ram.. Credit: Jillian Kestler-D’Amours/IPS
    • Opinion by Joseph Chamie (portland, usa)
    • Inter Press Service

    PORTLAND, USA, Mar 02 (IPS) – Israel of today as a Jewish and democratic state is a contradiction of terms and as such may possibly become transformed into a genuinely democratic Israel tomorrow with justice and equality for all.

    In Israel today, citizens who are not Jewish are treated differently than those who are Jewish, who benefit from certain rights and privileges. In a national opinion poll, most Jewish Israelis, about 80 percent, say Jews should get preferential treatment in Israel. Also, nearly half of Jewish Israelis say that Arab Israelis should be expelled or transferred from Israel.

    In addition, several years ago Israel passed the “nation-state law”, which among other things, states that the right to exercise national self-determination in Israel is unique to the Jewish people and also established Jewish settlement as a national value. While embraced by many Jewish Israelis, the nation-state law was considered apartheid by the country’s non-Jewish population, ostensibly making them second-class citizens.

    In a democratic Israel, in contrast, all Israelis irrespective of their religious affiliation would have the same rights and privileges. In such a state, justice and equality would prevail across the entire country’s population, not just for a single dominant religious group.

    A democratic Israel would be similar in many respects to Western liberal democracies such as the United States. In that democracy, all religious groups, including Jewish Americans, have the same rights, privileges and equality under the law.

    Most Jewish Israelis, some 75 percent across the religious spectrum, continue to believe that Israel can be a Jewish state and a democracy. In contrast, non-Jewish Israelis, including the majorities of Muslims, Christians and Druze, generally do not believe Israel can be a Jewish state and a democracy at the same time; it’s simply viewed as inconsistent.

    Further complicating political, legal and human rights matters for Israelis as well as Palestinians are the new government’s recent proposals for judicial reform, which would impact the independence of the Israeli Supreme Court.

    Many Israelis have gone to the streets to protest the proposed reform. Objections to the reforms are being raised by former government officials, military officers, business investors and others. Foreign allies, especially officials, Jewish leaders and journalists in America, have also expressed concerns over the proposals. In addition, the majority of Israelis, about two-thirds, oppose the proposed judicial reform.

    Turning to demographics, Israel’s population stood at 9.656 million at the end of 2022. The composition of the population was 74 percent Jewish, 21 percent Arab (largely Christian and Muslims) and 5 percent others (Figure 1).

    Source: Israel, Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS).

    In 1948 when Israel was established, the country’s proportion Jewish was 82 percent of its population of 806 thousand. By the 1960s the proportion Jewish reached a record high of nearly 90 percent. Since that high, the proportion Jewish in Israel has been steadily declining to its current level of 74 percent.

    In addition to Israel’s changing demographics, the Jewish Israeli population has not been confined to its 1948 borders. Large numbers have expanded to settlements in East Jerusalem and the West Bank.

    Israel’s Jewish settler population in the West Bank, for example, is now estimated at more than half a million. Many of the estimated 700 thousand Jewish Israelis now living in the West Bank and East Jerusalem are motivated by their religious mission to restore historic Israel to the Jewish people.

    The Jewish settler population is continuing to increase rapidly in the West Bank, which is a top priority of ultranationalist parties who oppose Palestinian statehood.

    The Israeli government has also pledged to legalize wildcat outposts and increase the approval and construction of settler homes in the West Bank.

    In contrast, the United Nations Security Council and much of the international community of nations, including the United States, the European Union and the United Nations, continue to support the idea of an independent Palestinian state. However, the changing demographics in the West Bank have virtually eliminated the possibility of the two-state solution.

    Without the two-state solution, Jewish Israelis face a major challenge affecting their majority status, namely the possibility of the one-state solution.

    The one-state solution would involve the entire Israeli and Palestinian populations now living between the Mediterranean Sea and Jordan River. In such a population numbering approximately 15 million inhabitants, the Jewish population would become a ruling minority of approximately 47 percent, a fundamental change from the sizable Jewish majority of 74 percent in Israel today (Figure 2).

    Source: Times of Israel.

    Even today the Israeli government is confronting human rights issues with its expansion throughout the occupied Palestinian territories. International, Israeli and Palestinian human rights organizations as well as independent observers have found Israeli authorities practicing apartheid and persecution in the occupied Palestinian territories.

    According to those human rights organizations, Israeli government policy is to maintain the domination by Jewish Israelis over Palestinians as well as the abuses and discriminatory policies against Palestinians living in the occupied territories.

    Israel rejects those accusations, saying it is a democracy and committed to international law and open to scrutiny. The government cites security concerns and protecting the lives of Israelis for its imposition of travel and related restrictions on Palestinians, whose violence in the past included suicide bombings of Israeli cities and deadly attacks against Israelis.

    Many have come to the conclusion that given the policies of the current Israeli government, a political path for Israel and an independent Palestinian state to coexist peacefully is simply wishful thinking. For some the two-state solution is effectively dead and it is simply waiting for its formal funeral.

    In addition, the human cost of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been high and is rising. So far in 2023, the conflict has resulted in the deaths of an estimated 63 Palestinians and 13 Israelis.

    From 2008 to 2020 the numbers of killed and injured from the conflict among Israelis and Palestinian documented by the UN were 251 and 5,590 deaths, respectively, and 5,600 and 115,000 injuries, respectively. In brief, over that time period approximately 95 percent of those killed and injured due to the conflict were Palestinians (Figure 3).

    Source: UN Office for Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA).

    It is evident that the Israeli government and many Israelis would like to continue the Jewish settler expansion in the West Bank. That expansion clearly has serious consequences for the resident Palestinian population and the Israelis as well as the prospects of an independent Palestinian state.

    The demise of the two-state solution and the possible one-state solution also creates a major foreign and domestic dilemma for the United States, Israel’s major political, military and economic supporter and biggest ally.

    Israel is the largest recipient of U.S. foreign assistance, estimated at more than 3 billion dollars annually and more than 150 dollars cumulatively. Also, America has vetoed scores of United Nations Security Council resolutions critical of Israel, including at least 53 since 1973.

    Given America’s commitment to democratic values, freedom of religious beliefs and equality of citizenship, the White House, U.S. Senators, Congressional Representatives as well as the nation’s citizens will be faced with how to respond to the absence of a possible Palestinian state and Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians.

    In the absence of the two-state solution, it will become increasingly difficult for the United States to continue its unwavering commitment and unequivocal support in light of Israeli policies and treatment of the Palestinians. Perhaps, consistent with its values and laws, America will decide to support the one-state solution with equality of all inhabitants, regardless of religious identities.

    More importantly, in the absence of a truly independent Palestinian state, Israel may slowly come to embrace the one-state solution. Eventually then, especially given the unavoidable demographic realities strikingly visible on the ground, Israel may possibly come to realize that it’s time to transform the Israel of today into a truly democratic Israel of tomorrow with justice and equality for all.

    Joseph Chamie is a consulting demographer, a former director of the United Nations Population Division and author of numerous publications on population issues, including his recent book, “Population Levels, Trends, and Differentials”.

    © Inter Press Service (2023) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service

    [ad_2]

    Global Issues

    Source link

  • When Two Elephants Fight: How the Global South Uses Non-Alignment To Avoid Great Power Rivalries

    When Two Elephants Fight: How the Global South Uses Non-Alignment To Avoid Great Power Rivalries

    [ad_1]

    A return of non-alignment was evident at the March 2022 UN General Assembly special session on Ukraine. Fifty-two governments from the global south did not support western sanctions against Russia. CREDIT: Manuel Elias/UN
    • Opinion
    • Inter Press Service

    Feb 17 (IPS) – An African proverb notes that “when two elephants fight, it is the grass underneath that suffers”. Many states in the global south are, therefore, seeking to avoid getting caught in the middle of any future battles between the US and China. Instead, they are calling for a renewal of the concept of non-alignment. This was an approach employed in the 1950s by newly independent countries to balance between the two ideological power blocs of east and west during the era of the Cold War 

    The new non-alignment stance is based on a perceived need to maintain southern sovereignty, pursue socio-economic development, and benefit from powerful external partners without having to choose sides. It also comes from historical grievances during the era of slavery, colonialism and Cold War interventionism.

    These grievances include unilateral American military interventions in Grenada (1983), Panama (1989) and Iraq (2003) as well as support by the US and France for autocracies in countries like Egypt, Morocco, Chad and Saudi Arabia, when it suits their interests.

    Many southern governments are particularly irked by America’s Manichaean division of the world into “good” democracies and “bad” autocracies. More recently, countries in the global south have highlighted north-south trade disputes and western hoarding of COVID-19 vaccines as reinforcing the unequal international system of “global apartheid”.

    A return of non-alignment was evident at the March 2022 UN General Assembly special session on Ukraine. Fifty-two governments from the global south did not support western sanctions against Russia. This, despite Russia’s clear violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty, which southern states have historically condemned.

    A month later, 82 southern states refused to back western efforts to suspend Russia from the UN Human Rights Council.

    These included powerful southern states such as India, Indonesia, South Africa, Ethiopia, Brazil, Argentina and Mexico.

    The origins of non-alignment

    In 1955, a conference was held in the Indonesian city of Bandung to regain the sovereignty of Africa and Asia from western imperial rule. The summit also sought to foster global peace, promote economic and cultural cooperation, and end racial domination. Governments attending were urged to abstain from collective defence arrangements with great powers.

    Six years later, in 1961, the 120-strong Non-Aligned Movement emerged. Members were required to shun military alliances such as NATO and the Warsaw Pact, as well as bilateral security treaties with great powers.

    Non-alignment advocated “positive” – not passive – neutrality. States were encouraged to contribute actively to strengthening and reforming institutions such as the UN and the World Bank.

    India’s patrician prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, is widely regarded to have been the intellectual “father of non-alignment”. He regarded the concept as an insurance policy against world domination by either superpower bloc or China. He also advocated nuclear disarmament.

    Indonesia’s military strongman, Suharto, championed non-alignment through “regional resilience”. South-east Asian states were urged to seek autonomy and prevent external powers from intervening in the region.

    Egypt’s charismatic prophet of Arab unity, Gamal Abdel Nasser, strongly backed the use of force in conducting wars of liberation in Algeria and southern Africa, buying arms and receiving aid from both east and west.
    For his part, Ghana’s prophet of African unity, Kwame Nkrumah, promoted the idea of an African High Command as a common army to ward off external intervention and support Africa’s liberation.

    The Non-Aligned Movement, however, suffered from the problems of trying to maintain cohesion among a large, diverse group. Many countries were clearly aligned to one or other power bloc.

    By the early 1980s, the group had switched its focus from east-west geo-politics to north–south geo-economics. The Non-Aligned Movement started advocating a “new international economic order”. This envisaged technology and resources being transferred from the rich north to the global south in order to promote industrialisation.

    The north, however, simply refused to support these efforts.

    Latin America and south-east Asia

    Most of the recent thinking and debates on non-alignment have occurred in Latin America and south-east Asia.

    Most Latin American countries have refused to align with any major power. They have also ignored Washington’s warnings to avoid doing business with China. Many have embraced Chinese infrastructure, 5G technology and digital connectivity.

    Bolivia, Cuba, El Salvador, Nicaragua, and Venezuela refused to condemn Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Many of the region’s states declined western requests to impose sanctions on Moscow. The return of Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva as president of Brazil – the largest and wealthiest country in the region – heralds the “second coming” (following his first presidency between 2003 and 2011) of a champion of global south solidarity.

    For its part, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) has shown that non-alignment has as much to do with geography as strategy. Singapore sanctioned Russia over the invasion of Ukraine. Indonesia condemned the intervention but rejected sanctions. Myanmar backed the invasion while Laos and Vietnam refused to condemn Moscow’s aggression.

    Many ASEAN states have historically championed “declaratory non-alignment”. They have used the concept largely rhetorically while, in reality, practising a promiscuous “multi-alignment”. Singapore and the Philippines forged close military ties with the US; Myanmar with India; Vietnam with Russia, India, and the US; and Malaysia with Britain, Australia, and New Zealand.

    This is also a region in which states simultaneously embrace and fear Chinese economic assistance and military cooperation. This, while seeking to avoid any external powers dominating the region or forming exclusionary military alliances.

    Strong African voices are largely absent from these non-alignment debates, and are urgently needed.

    Pursuing non-alignment in Africa

    Africa is the world’s most insecure continent, hosting 84% of UN peacekeepers. This points to a need for a cohesive southern bloc that can produce a self-sustaining security system – Pax Africana – while promoting socio-economic development.

    Uganda aims to champion this approach when it takes over the three-year rotating chair of the Non-Aligned Movement in December 2023. Strengthening the organisation into a more cohesive bloc, while fostering unity within the global south, is a major goal of its tenure.

    Uganda has strong potential allies. For example, South Africa has championed “strategic non-alignment” in the Ukraine conflict, advocating a UN-negotiated solution, while refusing to sanction its BRICS ally, Russia. It has also relentlessly courted its largest bilateral trading partner, China, whose Belt and Road Initiative and BRICS bank are building infrastructure across the global south.

    Beijing is Africa’s largest trading partner at US$254 billion, and builds a third of the continent’s infrastructure.

    If a new non-alignment is to be achieved in Africa, the foreign military bases of the US, France and China – and the Russian military presence – must, however, be dismantled.

    At the same time the continent should continue to support the UN-led rules-based international order, condemning unilateral interventions in both Ukraine and Iraq. Pax Africana would best be served by:

    • building local security capacity in close cooperation with the UN;
    • promoting effective regional integration; and
    • fencing off the continent from meddling external powers, while continuing to welcome trade and investment from both east and west.The Conversation

    Adekeye Adebajo, Professor and Senior research fellow, Centre for the Advancement of Scholarship, University of Pretoria

    This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

    © Inter Press Service (2023) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service

    [ad_2]

    Global Issues

    Source link

  • India Can Use The G20 to Fight Corruption and Reduce Global Inequalities

    India Can Use The G20 to Fight Corruption and Reduce Global Inequalities

    [ad_1]

    Despite unprecedented challenges, 2022 also opened windows of opportunity to move the needle around critical anti-corruption issues, such as anti-money laundering, asset recovery, beneficial ownership, and renewable energy. Credit: Shutterstock.
    • Opinion by Sanjeeta Pant (sanjeeta pant)
    • Inter Press Service

    Sanjeeta Pant, Jan 25 (IPS) – The G20 India Presidency is marked by unprecedented geopolitical, environmental, and economic crises. Rising inflation threatens to erase decades of economic development and push more people into poverty. Violent extremism is also on the rise as a result of increasing global inequality, and the rule of law is in decline everywhere. All of these challenges impact the G20’s goal of realizing a faster and more equitable post-pandemic economic recovery.

    But as India prioritizes its agenda for 2023, it is corruption that is at the heart of all of these other problems- and which poses the greatest threat to worldwide peace and prosperity.

    An Idea Whose Time Has Come

    Despite unprecedented challenges, 2022 also opened windows of opportunity to move the needle around critical anti-corruption issues, such as anti-money laundering, asset recovery, beneficial ownership, and renewable energy. When global leaders meet during the G20 Indian Presidency , they must prioritize and build on this progress, rather than make new commitments around these issues that they then fail to implement.

    According to the UN, an estimated 2-5% of global GDP, or up to $2 trillion, is laundered annually. Although the G20 has repeatedly committed to the Financial Action Task Force’s (FATF) anti-money laundering standards, member countries have been slow to implement policy reforms. In the wake of the Russian invasion of Ukraine and ineffective economic sanctions against Russian oligarchs, governments have started reexamining existing policy and institutional gaps, especially recognizing the role of Designated Non-Financial Businesses and Professions (DNFBPs), also known as “gatekeepers.”

    G20 member countries are responding to concerns and criticisms from their national counterparts regarding failures to adopt FATF recommendations and clamp down on “dirty money.” Grappling with the need to be able to prosecute money-laundering cases and recover billions of dollars worth of frozen assets, they are also amending national laws to be able to do so.

    Lack of beneficial ownership transparency is also aiding the flow of laundered money globally. The G20 recognizes beneficial ownership data as an effective instrument to fight financial crime and “protect the integrity and transparency of the global financial system.”

    The Russian invasion helped drive home this message, especially among countries that are popular destinations for those buying luxury goods and assets. FATF’s amendment of its beneficial ownership recommendations in early 2022 was timely. Member countries are also introducing new reporting rules, and fast-tracking policies and processes to set up beneficial ownership registers. While there are still gaps in the proposed policies – as identified here– these are important first steps.

    Similarly, the transition to renewable energy, initially raised as an environmental issue and then as a national security concern is increasingly gaining attention from a resource governance perspective. Given the scale of the potential investment, there is a need to tackle corruption in the energy sector to avoid potential pitfalls resulting from a lack of open and accountable systems as we transition to a net zero economy.

    The cross-cutting nature of the industry means a wide range of issues– from procurement and conflict of interest in the public sector to beneficial ownership transparency- need to be considered. The global energy crisis and the Indonesian Presidency’s prioritization of the issue have helped build momentum around corruption in the renewable energy transition, and this focus must continue.

    Calling on India

    Corruption-related issues identified here are transnational in nature and have global implications, including for India. For instance, with money laundering cases rising in India, it cannot afford to regard it as a problem limited to safe havens like the UK or the US. The same is true for the lack of beneficial ownership transparency or corruption in the renewable energy transition, which fuels illicit financial networks in India and beyond, and which often transcend national borders.

    Finally, corruption has a disproportionate impact on the global poor. Almost 10% of the global population lives in extreme poverty, many of whom live in countries such as India. The G20, under the Indian Presidency, provides a unique opportunity to ensure the voices of the most vulnerable are heard at the global level. By prioritizing the anti-corruption agenda and building on past priority issues and commitments, the Indian government can lead efforts to bridge the North-South divide.

    Sanjeeta Pant is Programs and Learning Manager at Accountability Lab. Follow the Lab on Twitter @accountlab

    © Inter Press Service (2023) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service

    [ad_2]

    Global Issues

    Source link

  • The Value of Strong Multilateral Cooperation in a Fractured World

    The Value of Strong Multilateral Cooperation in a Fractured World

    [ad_1]

    • Opinion by Ulrika Modeer, Tsegaye Lemma (united nations)
    • Inter Press Service

    UNITED NATIONS, Jan 18 (IPS) – The multilateral system, even in the face of heightened geopolitical tension and big power rivalry, remains the uniquely inclusive vehicle for managing mutual interdependencies in ways that enhance national and global welfare. The complex challenges of a global pandemic, climate emergency, inequality and the risk of nuclear conflict cannot be dealt with by one country or one region alone. Coordinated collective action is required.

    Without coordinated and timely collective global action in recent years to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic, global suffering would have been far greater.

    Initiatives such as COVAX and the UN’s socio-economic response to COVID-19 not only helped mitigate the public health emergency, but also help decision-makers look beyond recovery towards 2030, managing complexity and uncertainty.

    The devastating war in Ukraine has been a colossal blow to multilateral efforts by the international community to maintain peace and prevent major wars. However, multilateral cooperation cannot be declared obsolete – it is crucial in efforts to put human dignity and planetary health at the heart of cross-border cooperation.

    The recent Black Sea Grain Initiative agreement represents a key testament to the value of multilateral cooperation working even in the most difficult circumstances, ensuring the protection of those that are most vulnerable to global shocks.

    Without this agreement, global food prices would have risen even further, and vulnerable countries pushed further into hunger and political unrest.

    The multilateral system is faced with the ostensible imbalance in matching humanitarian and development needs with Official Development Assistance (ODA) commitments. Despite some donors’ efforts to maintain – and even increase – their ODA commitments, others are faced with increasing politicization of aid – and it is part of the political calculus.

    With the war in Ukraine still raging, there is real possibility that several donors will tap into ODA budget to cover the partial or entire cost of hosting Ukrainian refugees and rebuilding the devastated Ukrainian infrastructure and economy.

    The UN system, a core part of the rule-based international order, is funded dominantly by voluntary earmarked contributions. Ultimately, this gives donor countries influence over the objectives of global public good creation.

    Funding patterns tend to be unpredictable, making it hard to strategize and plan for the long term. Although earmarked funding allows the system to deliver solutions to specific issues with scale, the system’s lack of quality funding support risks eroding its multilateral character, strategic independence, universal presence, and development effectiveness.

    The recently launched report by the Dag Hammarskjöld Foundation and the UN’s Multi-Partner Trust Fund Office showed that more than 70 percent of funding to the UN development system is earmarked, compared to 24 percent for the World Bank Group and IMF, and only 3 percent for the EU.

    As the world faces daunting development finance prospects in 2022-2023, investments should focus on protecting a strong and effective multilateral system; the system that remains trusted by countries and partners for its reliable delivery of services.

    It has also proven to complement bilateral, south-south and other forms of cooperation – beyond the traditional development narrative. An ODI study showed that the multilateral channel, when compared with bilateral channel, remains less-politicized, more demand-driven, more selective in terms of poverty criteria and a good conduit for global public goods.

    Notwithstanding the institutional and bureaucratic challenges that the multilateral system faces, which must be addressed head-on, a retreat from a shared system of rules and norms that has served the world for seven decades is the wrong response.

    Those of us in the multilateral system, especially in the UN development system, must recognize the difficult work that lies ahead. We must continue to demonstrate that each tax dollar is spent judiciously and show traceable results, while upholding the highest standards set out in the UN charter.

    Improved transparency on how and where we spend the funds entrusted to us by our key partners and the IATI standard have long been adopted as key requirement outlined in the funding compact.

    The Multilateral Organisation Performance Assessment Network and other donor assessments have recognized the systems’ value for money and confirmed that partnerships with other UN entities improve programmes and effectively integrates multiple sources of expertise.

    Of course, the system must continue to build on successes and lessons to prove to our partners that we remain worthy of their trust and drive our collective agenda.

    However, the true value of multilateral cooperation can only be fully realized with strong political commitment by partners matched with the necessary financial investment.

    Ulrika Modéer is UN Assistant Secretary-General and Director of the Bureau of External Relations and Advocacy, UNDP; Tsegaye Lemma is Team Leader, Strategic Analysis and Corporate Engagement, Bureau of External Relations and Advocacy, UNDP.

    Source: UNDP

    IPS UN Bureau


    Follow IPS News UN Bureau on Instagram

    © Inter Press Service (2023) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service

    [ad_2]

    Global Issues

    Source link

  • Why U.S.-Africa Relations and Africa Matter More Now Than Ever

    Why U.S.-Africa Relations and Africa Matter More Now Than Ever

    [ad_1]

    To achieve a strong partnership with Africa, the U.S. administration will need to demonstrate that it is interested in Africa because the continent itself matters, not merely to address other U.S. international objectives. Djibouti Port. Credit: James Jeffrey/IPS
    • Opinion by Philippe Benoit (washington dc)
    • Inter Press Service

    A strong Africa working in partnership with the U.S. is an important and all too often overlooked element of a robust U.S. geopolitical strategy. But to achieve this strong partnership, the U.S. administration will need to demonstrate that it is interested in Africa because the continent itself matters, not merely to address other U.S. international objectives.

    Unfortunately, there is skepticism within Africa, founded in historical precedent, as to U.S. intentions. For many years, as European powers withdrew from Africa following the decolonization of the continent, the U.S. and Soviet Union stepped in seeking to install “friendly” regimes.

    Africa was an area of interest more because of its importance to the U.S./Soviet Union Cold War than on its own merits. The result was often misguided policies focused on political alignment rather than promoting improvements on the continent. As the Cold War waned, arguably so did some of the U.S. interest in Africa.

    2008 saw the election of an American president of African descent, Barack Obama, generating excitement across the continent. In 2014, President Obama convened the inaugural U.S.-Africa Leaders Summit, the largest gathering at that time of U.S. and African leaders.

    Unfortunately, there followed a general sense of disappointment as the summit failed to translate into strong action. Interestingly, the U.S. president at times most often praised for his support to Africa is President George W. Bush, who launched PEPFAR, the large-scale effort to fight AIDS focused on Africa that is also considered by some historians to be his greatest achievement.   

    Last month’s summit took place on a complex international and geopolitical backdrop for the U.S., marked by the growing competition with an emerging China and, more recently, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. For some American commentators, the summit provided an opportunity to draw Africa closer to the U.S. in countering these challenges following a period of inactivity.

    But Africa’s leaders have signaled that they don’t want to be viewed as mere tools for other geopolitical dynamics — including tensions with China and Russia — they want their concerns addressed on their merits. And the Biden administration was careful to not present last month’s summit as China/Russia-oriented. As explained by a CNN commentator: “In previewing this … summit, American officials have been careful to avoid framing Africa as a pawn in a larger geopolitical strategy.”

    This represents a wise strategy, especially as Africa has grown substantially both economically and politically over the last several decades and is poised for further growth. The GDP of Sub-Saharan Africa has grown five-fold from $400 billion 20 years ago to nearly $2 trillion today, and Africa’s total GDP now reaches nearly $3 trillion when North Africa is included. Similarly, a Brookings report estimates that the middle class of Sub-Saharan Africa will grow from 114 million in 2015 to 212 million in 2030. It is also the region where the largest growth in population is expected going forward: by 2050, an estimated quarter of the world’s people will be African.

    African leaders themselves are not oblivious to the growing strategic importance of their own countries. Rich in agriculture, mineral and energy resources, and with a growing diaspora that funneled over $83 billion in remittances back to Africa in 2020 (far more than the $65 billion the continent received in official development assistance that same year), Africa has become an attractive destination for the astute investor. 

    Newly empowered by the growth potential of their countries, many African leaders are demanding a stronger voice and greater respect internationally — and they’re getting it from China whose presence in Africa is ubiquitous. Similarly, Japan is re-asserting its engagement with Africa.

    Last month’s U.S.-Africa Leaders Summit is a welcome effort in this context and there is much room for strengthening ties. For example, Africa accounts for only 1 percent of U.S. foreign trade, most of which is in petroleum imports from two countries. But African governments, for their part, will need to demonstrate their openness to advancing inclusive growth and political rights domestically.

    Just as Asia has dominated the growth story of the last 50 years, will Africa be the emerging engine of growth for the next 50? This is something that analysts are contemplating. The recent analysis of the continent by the International Energy Agency posits a possible high growth “Africa Case” scenario in which the continent is able to exploit effectively its potential. 

    Arguably, the U.S. and other advanced economies were caught off-guard by the rapid economic growth that took place in Asia. They were slow to anticipate it, recognize it and integrate its implications into their strategies. This is not to predict when it comes to Africa that it will inevitably replicate what Asia has done; however, the reality is: “maybe, who knows?” That’s a potential outcome that the U.S. should prepare for, and even nurture. 

    What might Africa look like 20 years from now? A real possibility is a 2.4 billion-person continent with significantly diminished poverty and a large and growing middle class that can provide a vibrant economic partner for the U.S. To achieve this, a strong partnership between the U.S. and Africa is key and in the interest of both their peoples.

    Philippe Benoit has over 25 years of experience working on international development, including previous positions at the World Bank where he focused on Africa.  He is currently research director for Global Infrastructure Analytics and Sustainability 2050. 

    Bayo Oyewole, CEO of BayZx Global Strategic Solutions, currently provides independent advisory services to the African Development Bank. He previously held senior positions at the World Bank and the International Finance Corporation, including in the office of the Executive Director representing several African countries on the World Bank Board.

    © Inter Press Service (2023) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service

    [ad_2]

    Global Issues

    Source link