The UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) is the largest aid agency in the Gaza Strip where it provides emergency and other assistance to vulnerable Palestinians. Credit: UNRWA
Opinion by James E. Jennings (atlanta, usa)
Inter Press Service
ATLANTA, USA, Oct 31 (IPS) – The most solemn and terrifying words ever uttered are those inscribed over the gateway to Hell in Dante’s Inferno: “Abandon all hope, ye who enter here!” Hope is essential for human survival both as individuals and as nations.
Surveying the history of the seemingly endless series of wars and counter-wars between Israel and its foes in Gaza and Lebanon from 1948 until now—a period of 76 years—it seems that all hope for peace has been lost. Palestinians, Lebanese, the people of Gaza—and yes, the Israelis too—are all residents of this inferno, the endless Hell of war.
If you pay close attention to the weak, mealy-mouthed utterances of US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken—the emissary of the equally weak President Joe Biden—you’ll understand that the Middle East region and therefore the world is rapidly approaching the Ninth Circle of Hell.
Both of them utter meaningless phrases that reveal their lack of understanding at best, or at worst their vicious, inhumane complicity.
Now, the latest, and possibly most obscene, third act in this modern Greek tragedy was played out October 28 in Israel’s Knesset. Nearly 100 of the 120 members of that wise and honorable body voted to cut the lifeline for millions of Palestinians who depend on the UN’s Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) for health care and education.
Credit: UNRWA
Besides irrationally imposing new cruelties—rubbing salt in the wounds of an entire population of innocent people—the Knesset’s decision constitutes cultural genocide, an essential factor underlying the supreme international crime of Genocide as defined by the United Nations.
UNRWA’s registry constitutes the primary link millions of 1948 War refugees and their descendants have to their lost properties. Destroying that link erases an entire people from history. It obliterates Israel’s “Crime of the Century,” which is the theft of the nation of Palestine.
Is this the hand of friendship, the “Light to the Nations” Israel’s founder Ben Gurion promised in 1948? Review the numbers: there are still 1.2 million registered Palestinian refugees dependent on food aid in 68 camps in Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, the West Bank, and Gaza. UNRWA services in Gaza alone include 140 health care centers and 700 schools educating 300,000 students.
Is there hope in this darkened scenario? Actually, there is. Sun Tzu’s long-ago Chinese classic, The Art of War, records the following sardonic, understated observation: “There is no example of a long war benefitting anybody.”
Which means that at some point people will have to come to their senses, or else generations will pass away before their descendants, with new issues to deal with, will wonder what the fuss was all about.
But that’s in the future—perhaps the distant future. What about now? Is there any hope? Surprisingly, yes, there is.
In an interview on al-Jazeera television on October 25, 2024, after more than a year of the most devastating and genocidal war on Palestine’s civilian population, leading Palestinian politician and spokesman Mustafa Barghouti, expressed optimism.
He said that the single positive development during the longest and most destructive war against Palestine in its history is the continuing determination of the Palestinian people to remain on their land and to resist efforts to expunge their national identity, as is their right.
In Arabic it is called Sumud, “steadfastness,” loosely translated as “Staying power.” Hope survives. Where there’s life, there’s hope.
James E. Jennings is President of Conscience International, an international aid organization that has responded to wars in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Palestine, and Gaza since 1991.
Japanese organization Nihon Hidankyo waws today awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Credit: Niklas Elmehed/Nobel Prize
by IPS Correspondent (united nations)
Inter Press Service
UNITED NATIONS, Oct 11 (IPS) – The United Nations Secretary General António Guterres congratulated grassroots Japanese organization Nihon Hidankyo on being awarded the 2024 Nobel Peace Prize.
“The atomic bomb survivors from Hiroshima and Nagasaki, also known as the hibakusha, are selfless, soul-bearing witnesses of the horrific human cost of nuclear weapons,” he said in a statement.
“While their numbers grow smaller each year, the relentless work and resilience of the hibakusha are the backbone of the global nuclear disarmament movement.”
The Norwegian Nobel Committee awarded the 2024 Peace Prize for “its efforts to achieve a world free of nuclear weapons and for demonstrating through witness testimony that nuclear weapons must never be used again.”
The committee said the global movement arose in response to the atom bomb attacks of August 1945.
“The testimony of the Hibakusha—the survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki—is unique in this larger context. These historical witnesses have helped to generate and consolidate widespread opposition to nuclear weapons around the world by drawing on personal stories, creating educational campaigns based on their own experience, and issuing urgent warnings against the spread and use of nuclear weapons. The Hibakusha help us to describe the indescribable, to think the unthinkable, and to somehow grasp the incomprehensible pain and suffering caused by nuclear weapons.”
It singled out Nihon Hidankyo, who reportedly cried following the announcement and other representatives of the Hibakusha to have contributed greatly to the establishment of the “nuclear taboo.”
The Norwegian Nobel Committee acknowledged one encouraging fact: “No nuclear weapon has been used in war in nearly 80 years.”
The award comes as the world prepares to mark 80 years since two American atomic bombs killed an estimated 120 000 inhabitants of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. A comparable number died of burn and radiation injuries in the months and years that followed.
“Today’s nuclear weapons have far greater destructive power. They can kill millions and would impact the climate catastrophically. A nuclear war could destroy our civilization,” the committee said.
“The fates of those who survived the infernos of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were long concealed and neglected. In 1956, local Hibakusha associations along with victims of nuclear weapons tests in the Pacific formed the Japan Confederation of A- and H-Bomb Sufferers Organizations. This name was shortened in Japanese to Nihon Hidankyo. It would become the largest and most influential Hibakusha organisation in Japan.”
The Nobel Peace Prize for 2024 fulfills Alfred Nobel’s desire to recognize efforts of the greatest benefit to humankind.
Guterres said he would “never forget my many meetings with them over the years. Their haunting living testimony reminds the world that the nuclear threat is not confined to history books. Nuclear weapons remain a clear and present danger to humanity, once again appearing in the daily rhetoric of international relations.”
He said the only way to eliminate the threat of nuclear weapons is to eliminate them altogether.
September 26th marks the International Day for the Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons. Credit: International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN)Darren Ornitz
Opinion by Tariq Rauf (vienna, austria)
Inter Press Service
VIENNA, Austria, Oct 08 (IPS) – In recent years, the rhetoric, strategy and practice of nuclear deterrence has grown riskier, more urgent, more dangerous, less stable, and increasingly in the hands of deficient leaders and policymakers.
Playing Nuclear Games
The ten States that have manufactured and test detonated nuclear weapons since 1945, each have received and/or provided assistance to other States – no existing nuclear weapon development and acquisition programme is truly indigenous or independent.
Furthermore, all ten nuclear-armed States have in place policies to use their nuclear weapons in circumstances assessed by them as threatening their vital security interests, sovereignty and territorial integrity; and in this context, all of them at one time or another have made implicit or explicit threats to use nuclear weapons.
On 26th September this year, at the commencement of the United Nations General Assembly’s annual high-level commemoration of the International Day for the Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons, Secretary-General António Guterres warned that, “We are heading in the wrong direction entirely. Not since the worst days of the cold war has the spectre of nuclear weapons cast such a dark shadow”. He noted that nuclear-armed States “must stop gambling with humanity’s future” and must honour their commitments and obligations for nuclear disarmament.
The President of the General Assembly, Philémon Yang (Cameroon), also warned that, “This is a time when nuclear blackmail has emerged, and some are recklessly threatening to unleash a nuclear catastrophe. This simply cannot continue. We must step back from the nuclear precipice, and we must act now”.
In this regard, let’s take a brief detour back into the early history of the nuclear age. Following the Trinity nuclear test detonation of 16th July 1945, nuclear scientist Leó Szilárd observed that, “Almost without exception, all the creative physicists had misgivings about the use of the bomb” and further that “Truman did not understand at all what was involved regarding nuclear weapons”.
Last year, the movie Oppenheimer had been the rage based on a noteworthy biography of Robert Oppenheimer entitled American Prometheus written by historians Kai Bird and Martin Sherwin. Though the movie spared its viewers the horrors of the atomic bombing of Japan, it did reflect the warnings of the early nuclear weapon scientists about the long-term or permanent dangers of a nuclear arms race and associated risks of further nuclear weapons use.
On the other hand, the film overlooked other historical works including A World Destroyed: Hiroshima and its Legacies also by Martin Sherwin, that disputes and negates the US government’s narrative about the necessity of using nuclear weapons twice over civilian targets in Japan and suggests that the decisions were driven mainly by geostrategic and prestige considerations – criteria still in operation today to justify continuing retention of nuclear weapons.
Leó Szilárd’s observation that I have cited above that President Truman did not understand at all what was involved regarding nuclear weapons, unfortunately still rings true nearly 80 years on when it comes to the leaders of today’s nuclear-weapon possessor States as well as of most of their diplomats and those of 30-plus countries in military defence and security arrangements underpinned by nuclear weapons.
Now, why do I say this? In addition to nuclear doctrines based on nuclear weapons use, the UN nuclear disarmament system is in disarray. The Conference on Disarmament in Geneva, the single multilateral arms control negotiating forum, has been stymied since 1996, unable to agree on a sustained programme of work on any of its “decalogue” of agenda items.
The Disarmament Commission as the specialized, deliberative subsidiary body of the General Assembly that allows for in-depth deliberations on specific disarmament issues, inter alia “Recommendations for achieving the objective of nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation of nuclear weapons”, also has been deadlocked.
The First Committee of the General Assembly deals with disarmament, global challenges and threats to peace that affect the international community and seeks out solutions to the challenges in the international security regime. Every year it adopts more than 60 resolutions on various aspects of disarmament, but with no practical results in recent years.
The 2015 and 2022 nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) review conferences failed to agree on any measures to reduce the risks of nuclear weapons and their elimination. As did the 2023 and 2024 preparatory sessions for the 2026 NPT review conference.
The UN Summit of the Future, held on 22-23 September this year, agreed on a Pact for the Future that regrettably was a big disappointment as it lacked any concrete actions, even though it paid lip service to the call that the “The time for the total elimination of nuclear weapons is now”. The document failed to reaffirm commitments to existing global nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation treaties, or to call for new ones to be negotiated.
Notably the late UN Secretary General Kofi Annan had referred to this state of affairs as “mutually assured paralysis“, and that the “disarmament machinery is rusting”.
It is unfortunate that the above-referenced developments and the current nuclear rhetoric demonstrates that knowledge of nuclear history is waning thin and diplomats, academics and the mainstream media pundits are caught up with the emotions, pressures and even confusion of challenging technological advances in weapons, an ongoing territorial war in the heart of Europe, a genocidal war against Palestinians in Gaza, the West Bank and Lebanon, along with tensions in Northeast Asia and South Asia.
In effect, those in control of nuclear weapons today, along with the echo chambers in allied States in defence arrangements underpinned by nuclear deterrence, are playing games tickling the tail of the Promethean nuclear fire dragon.
Tickling the Tail of the Promethean Nuclear Fire Dragon
All nuclear-armed States today have in place policies and doctrines to use their nuclear weapons. In order to constrain the further proliferation of nuclear-armed States, the five NPT recognized “nuclear-weapon States” each have advanced negative security assurances to non-nuclear-weapon States parties to the NPT and to nuclear-weapon-free zone treaties, on the non-use or threat of use of nuclear weapons.
China is the only nuclear-weapon State to assert that it would not use nuclear weapons against any non-nuclear-weapon State. The other four nuclear-weapon States – France, Russia, UK and US – each have attached conditions to their negative security assurances to the effect that such an assurance would not be honoured were it to be attacked by a non-nuclear-weapon State in collaboration or with the assistance of another nuclear-weapon State.
The nuclear weapons employment policy of the United States clearly posits that “using nuclear weapons could create conditions for decisive results and the restoration of strategic stability”. For its part, Russian military doctrine envisions the threat of nuclear escalation or even first use of nuclear weapons to “de-escalate” a conflict on terms favourable to Russia.
China’s evolving nuclear doctrine envisions a “strong military dream” based on military-civil-fusion to achieve by 2049 full spectrum power projection. In South Asia, both India and Pakistan have nuclear doctrines positing use of nuclear weapons including pre-emptive nuclear strikes.
In the current heated and volatile atmosphere in central Europe in the context of the Ukraine war, it is reported that Russia is re-asserting the conditions it has traditionally laid down in its negative security assurances to States parties to the NPT and to nuclear-weapon-free zones (NWFZ), which essentially are similar to that of the US, to the effect that: Russia will not attack or threaten to attack a non-nuclear-weapon State party to the NPT or NWFZ treaty with nuclear weapons, unless that non-nuclear-weapon State attacks Russia in collaboration with another nuclear-weapon State.
Now, since we’re in a proxy war involving France, UK and US (all three are nuclear-weapon States) that are considering material assistance to Ukraine to attack military sites inside the territorial borders of Russia; it is not surprising that Russia has retaliated by warning Ukraine and its NATO backers that long range fires against Russia targeting its strategic military bases could trigger a nuclear response by Russia.
Strategic nuclear bases are those housing strategic nuclear delivery systems (long- and medium-range bombers, road and rail mobile ballistic missiles), command and control centres, early warning radars, naval bases for submarines, etc.
It is never a good idea for a non-nuclear-weapon State to threaten to target or to target strategic military sites in a nuclear-weapon State and it would be foolhardy to set such a precedent or to carry out military strikes that could provoke a nuclear response.
Were Ukraine to strike strategic military sites inside Russia proper, that would be the first time that a non-nuclear-weapon State would strike the continental homeland of a nuclear-armed State; though one might add that Iran’s recent missile strikes against nuclear-armed Israel fall into the same category.
Should the US/NATO allow long range fires against strategic military sites in Russia from Ukraine, that would further compound the already unacceptably high risk of a central strategic war involving four nuclear-weapon States and thus would be highly irresponsible and indefensible.
Departing NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg made comments in Washington to the effect that long range fires from Ukraine into Russian territory is the only one way to hit military targets behind the Russian lines, on Russian territory.
And that NATO should not be deterred by Russia’s “nuclear threats and rhetoric”; this in a way is questioning the credibility of Russian nuclear doctrine which is tantamount to “tickling the tail of the nuclear dragon” and could result in a Promethean nuclear fire of a central strategic war.
The new NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte also has claimed that “targeting Russian fighter jets and missiles before they can be used against Ukraine’s civilian infrastructure can help save lives”.
A just and equitable peace arrangement must be sought urgently under UN auspices to end the Ukraine war with the restoration of Ukraine’s sovereignty and territory; and all sides must strive to avoid any further escalatory moves that could trigger a central strategic war.
Seek Peace, Not War!
It is highly reprehensible that these days the voices of war are prevalent over the voices seeking peace. The UN disarmament machinery has failed as has the Summit of the Future to curb nuclear risks. The architecture of nuclear disarmament and arms control is steadily crumbing with our eyes wide shut!
Unless we can mend our ways, it might be too late to avert a Promethean nuclear fire that consumes us all. We urgently must rethink how we manage nuclear risks; security based on nuclear deterrence is inherently flawed and risky and cannot continue on a long term basis.
A new international security system must be envisaged on the basic design principle that the effects of system failure cannot result to fundamentally disrupt or end civilization. We urgently need a new international security paradigm that can prevent an existential global nuclear catastrophe and keep the Promethean nuclear fire dragon firmly bottled up.
The views expressed in this article are personal comments by Tariq Rauf, former Head of Verification and Security Policy at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
The panel for the session on “Remembering Hiroshima and Nagasaki: Imagining a World without Nuclear Weapons.” Credit: AD McKenzie/IPS
by AD McKenzie (paris)
Inter Press Service
PARIS, Sep 27 (IPS) – In any discussion of world peace and the future of humanity, the issue of nuclear arms must be addressed, and now.
That was the message from a range of delegates at the “Imaginer la Paix / Imagine Peace” conference, held in Paris September 22 to 24, and organized by the Sant’Egidio Community, a Christian organization founded in Rome in 1968 and now based in 70 countries.
Describing its tenets as “Prayer, service to the Poor and work for Peace,” the community has hosted 38 international, multi-faith peace meetings, bringing together activists from around the world. This is the first time the conference has been held in Paris, with hundreds traveling to France, itself a nuclear-weapon state.
Occurring against the backdrop of brutal, on-going conflicts in different regions and a new race by some countries to “upgrade” their arsenal, the gathering had a sense of urgency, with growing fears that nuclear weapons might be used by warlords. Participants highlighted current and past atrocities and called upon world leaders to learn from the past.
“After Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we have been blessed with many who have said ‘no’—’no’ a million times, creating movements and treaties, (and) awareness… that the only reasonable insight to learn from the conception and use of nuclear weapons is to say ‘no’,” said Andrea Bartoli, president of the Sant’Egidio Foundation for Peace and Dialogue, based in New York.
Participating in a conference forum Monday titled “Remembering Hiroshima and Nagasaki: Imagining a World Without Nuclear Weapons,” Bartoli and other speakers drew stark pictures of what living in a world with nuclear weapons entails, and they highlighted developments since World War II.
“After the two bombs were used against Hiroshima and Nagasaki, humans built more than 70,000 nuclear weapons and performed more than 2,000 tests. Still today we have more than 12,500, each of them with power greatly superior to the two used in August 1945,” Bartoli said.
Despite awareness of the catastrophic potential of these weapons and despite a UN treaty prohibiting their use, some governments argue that possessing nuclear arms is a deterrent—an argument that is deceptive, according to the forum speakers.
Anna Ikeda, program coordinator for disarmament at the UN Office of Soka Gakkai International. Credit: AD McKenzie/IPS
Jean-Marie Collin, director of ICAN (the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, a movement launched in the early 2000s in Australia and recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize in 2017), said that leaders who cite deterrence “accept the possibility of violating” international human rights.
“Nuclear weapons are designed to destroy cities and kill and maim entire populations, which means that all presidents and heads of government who implement a defense policy based on nuclear deterrence and who are therefore responsible for giving this order, are aware of this,” Collin told the forum.
ICAN campaigned for the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons that was adopted at the United Nations in 2017, entering into force in 2021. The adoption came nearly five decades after the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), which entered into force in 1970.
The terms of the NPT consider five countries to be nuclear weapons states: the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, France, and China. Four other countries also possess nuclear weapons: India, Pakistan, North Korea, and Israel.
According to a 2024 ICAN report, these nine states jointly spent €85 billion (USD 94,6 billion) on their atomic weapon arsenals last year, an expenditure ICAN has called “obscene” and “unacceptable.” France, whose president Emmanuel Macron spoke about peace in broad, general terms at the opening of the conference, spent around €5,3 billion (about USD 5,9 billion) in 2023 on its nuclear weapons, said the report.
The policy of “deterrence” and “reciprocity,” which essentially means “we’ll get rid of our weapons if you get rid of yours,” has been slammed by ICAN and fellow disarmament activists.
“With the constant flow of information, we often tend to lose sight of the reality of figures,” Collin said at the peace conference. “I hope this one will hold your attention: it is estimated that more than 38,000 children were killed in the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Children!”
All those killed—an estimated 210,000 people by the end of 1945—died in horrific ways, as survivors and others have testified. Delegates said that this knowledge should be the real “deterrent.”
At the forum, Anna Ikeda, program coordinator for disarmament at the UN Office of Soka Gakkai International, a global Buddhist movement, described testimony from a Hiroshima a-bomb survivor, Reiko Yamada, as one she would never forget.
“She (Yamada) stated, ‘A good friend of mine in the neighbourhood was waiting for her mother to return home with her four brothers and sisters. Later, she told me that on the second day after the bombing, a moving black lump crawled into the house. They first thought it was a black dog, but they soon realized it was their mother; she collapsed and died when she finally got to her children. They cremated her body in the yard,” Ikeda told the audience with emotion.
“Who deserves to die such a death? Nobody!” she continued. “Yet our world continues to spend billions of dollars to upkeep our nuclear arsenals, and our leaders at times imply readiness to use them. It is utterly unacceptable.”
Ikeda said that survivors, known as the “hibakusha” in Japan, have a fundamental answer to why nuclear weapons must be abolished—it is that “no one else should ever suffer what we did.”
Note: This article is brought to you by IPS Noram in collaboration with INPS Japan and Soka Gakkai International in consultative status with ECOSOC.
Students interact with ECW’s Executive Director, Yasmine Sherif, as they participate in an art therapy session at an ECW-supported school in Kyiv, Ukraine. In partnership with UNICEF Ukraine and Caritas Ukraine, the school offers vital mental health and psychosocial support. Credit: ECW
by IPS Correspondent (united nations)
Inter Press Service
UNITED NATIONS, Sep 17 (IPS) – Education Cannot Wait (ECW) has delivered quality education to children in crisis “against all odds,” ECW Executive Director Yasmine Sherif said at the United Nations today. “And you can imagine the odds. We are seeing more armed conflict, a growth of climate-induced disasters and the biggest refugee movement since World War 2.”
Education Cannot Wait’s ‘Results Against All Odds: 2023 Annual Results Report‘ launched today (September 17, 2024) gives details of the dire need for additional funding because, while the number of children in urgent need of education support has nearly tripled since 2016, for the first time in a decade funding for funding for education in emergencies and protracted crises dropped.
The global community is falling behind on its promise to ensure ‘quality education for all‘ by 2030, the report says, as armed conflicts, forced displacement, climate change, and other emergencies and protracted crises have left more than 224 million crisis-affected children in urgent need of education support, a sharp rise from 75 million in 2016.
Overall humanitarian funding for education decreased by 3% last year, from US$1.2 billion in 2022 to US$1.17 billion in 2023, according to the report.
Despite this, Education Cannot Wait (ECW), the global fund for education in emergencies and protracted crises within the United Nations, and its strategic partners continue to deliver life-saving, life-sustaining and multi-year investments in education to the world’s most vulnerable children and adolescents.
Sherif thanked ECW’s partners and the global community that supports education for children in crisis.
“Mostofall,wehavetothankthechildrenwhoareclingingontohopedespitethedarknessandtheoddsagainstthem,stillwantingtogotoschool,wantingtolearnandwantingtochangetheirlives.Now,despiteallthesealarmingtrendsandrealities,educationcannotwait,” Sherif said, noting that this report gave details of many children that had been reached sinceECWbecameoperationalin2017.
“That’ssixyears,11millionwithaholisticqualityeducation,aneducationthatischild-centeredandthatentitlestheentirespectrumofschoolmeansacademictraining,artsandmentalhealthandpsychosocialservices,protection,teachertrainingandteachersupport,amongstsomanyotherthings.” In 2023 alone, 5.6 million girls and boys were reached, she noted.
More Funding Needed to Meet 2026 Goal
To date, the fund has mobilized more than US$1.6 billion from public and private donors. However, US$600 million is urgently needed in donor contributions for ECW and its strategic partners to reach a total of 20 million children and adolescents with inclusive, quality education by the end of its 2023-2026 strategic plan period.
“For our 25 strategic donor partners, these transformative investments deliver a quality child-centered and holistic education, and thus represent a commitment to sustainable development, human rights, economic resilience and global security,” said Gordon Brown, UN Special Envoy for Global Education and Chair of ECW’s High-Level Steering Group.
“Education is the most powerful tool to restore hope in a world marred by brutal conflicts, human rights violations and inequality. It is our investment in a new generation of leaders.”
From Afghanistan, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia, Gaza, the West Bank, to Haiti, the Sahel, Sudan, Ukraine and other hotspots around the globe, ECW’s report highlights the profound impact of education in crisis settings.
Funding Education: A Moral Choice
“Girls and boys in crises are enduring the worst impacts of brutal man-made conflicts, forced displacement, climate change and other disasters. Our new report proves that despite these challenges, it is possible to provide them with the protection, hope and life-changing opportunity of a quality holistic education. To do this, we urgently call for US$600 million to meet our strategic plan targets and ensure a better future for 20 million girls and boys by the end of 2026,” said ECW Executive Director Yasmine Sherif. “This is the time to make a moral choice that is aligned with political action.”
The new report shows ECW’s strong focus on the world’s most vulnerable and at-risk children: of the children reached in 2023, more than half were girls (51%), 17% were internally displaced and 22% were refugees.
The quality and impact of the education delivered—even in the most difficult of circumstances—are also improving. In all, 9 out of 10 programmes reported improved school enrollment and 72% showed gender-equitable progress. ECW reported that, among programmes able to monitor learning outcomes, 80% of its investments demonstrated academic improvements and 72% showed improvements in children’s social and emotional learning and well-being.
ECW investments also improved the continuity of learning, with notable increases in the number of girls and boys reached through the Fund’s investments in early childhood education and secondary school, disability inclusion, gender-transformative approaches, mental health support, and agile, holistic solutions that address whole-child needs.
The climate crisis is an education crisis. The number of children reached through First Emergency Responses resulting from climate-induced hazards nearly doubled from 14% in 2022 to 27% in 2023.
The report lays out ECW’s distinct approach and results in improving coordination at the humanitarian-development nexus, joint programming, increasing localization and community engagement, and building stronger data and evidence systems.
It demonstrates ECW’s efforts with partners to deliver on key United Nations initiatives and reforms, including the Grand Bargain agreement, the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the Secretary-General UN reform. The report shows that the systems are in place and that Education Cannot Wait has brought a revival through bold support to make the systems work at its best. But funding is required to achieve the goals.
“Education is a public good and a fundamental right. To achieve our goals, global leaders must align policies, funding and humanitarian principles. Multilateral aid funding must immediately be increased to reverse the current downward trend, and partnerships and collaboration must be strengthened across humanitarian, development and peace efforts. Education Cannot Wait has shown us that the seemingly ‘impossible’ is indeed possible—provided that the funding is made available,” said Brown.
UNITED NATIONS, Sep 09 (IPS) – At most international forums, including the annual UN General Assembly high-level debate, Sierra Leonean President Julius Maada Bio consistently highlights the injustices of the global system, particularly Africa’s absence in the permanent category and underrepresentation in the non-permanent category of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC).
President Bio is the coordinator of the African Union Committee of Ten Heads of State and Government on UNSC Reform, known as C-10, a platform he uses to amplify his UNSC reform advocacy.
This year, he has been particularly vocal, as Sierra Leone currently holds a non-permanent seat on the Security Council and presides over the Council for the month of August.
For example, in his statement in the Security Council chambers on 12 August, President Bio emphasized the outdated nature of the current UNSC structure. “The current structure of the Security Council reflects an outdated world order, an era that fails to recognize Africa’s growing importance and contributions,” he remarked.
In a subsequent interview with Africa Renewal, the president pointed out that the continent is home to 1.3 billion people and 54 of the 193 UN member states—a significant part of the global community.
“We cannot just be a territory for proxy wars. We know what our problems are, and we should have a say in how to solve them,” he asserted, adding that more than 60 percent of the issues discussed in the Security Council pertain to Africa.
It is unjust for Africa to be sidelined in the 21st century, he argued, declaring: “I call on all African leaders and on all those who stand for justice and democracy around the world to fight this unfairness.”
As the UN prepares to celebrate its 80th anniversary in 2025, President Bio asserted that the celebration would only be meaningful if the current configuration of the Council is reformed, reflecting the frustration of many African leaders who feel the continent’s concerns are often overlooked.
Africa’s demands
Africa is demanding at least two permanent seats in the UN Security Council and two additional non-permanent seats, bringing the total number of non-permanent seats to five.
Additionally, Africa advocates for the abolition of the veto power. However, if the veto is retained, President Bio insisted that it must be extended to all new permanent members as a matter of justice.
The President broke down the potential support for Africa’s push for greater representation on the Security Council into two categories: support from within the continent and support from major global powers.
While support from within the continent comes naturally, he acknowledged the challenges posed by the P-5, (the five permanent members of the Security Council), who wield enormous power in the Council. “The main issue we have is the P-5. They are manning the gate. They have to let us in.”
Despite these challenges, he was encouraged that “They have recognized the fact that Africa has been treated unfairly.”
He stressed: “There is a new spirit; the world has changed, and leaders have come and gone. What I’m trying to do is convince my colleagues in Africa and the world at large that the injustice done to Africa cannot be accepted.”
The United Nations Secretary-General, António Guterres, supports Africa’s demands for UNSC reforms. “We cannot accept that the world’s preeminent peace and security body lacks a permanent voice for a continent of well over a billion people — a young and rapidly growing population — making up 28 percent of the membership of the United Nations,” Guterres said at the 12 August meeting.
He added, “Nor can we accept that Africa’s views are undervalued on questions of peace and security, both on the continent and around the world.”
To ensure the Council’s full credibility and legitimacy, he emphasized the importance of “heeding the longstanding calls from the UN General Assembly, various geographic groups — from the Arab Group to the Benelux, Nordic, and CARICOM countries — and some permanent members of this Council itself, to correct this injustice.”
I call on all African leaders and on all those who stand for justice and democracy around the world to fight this unfairness.
Lessons from Sierra Leone’s civil war
Sierra Leone’s brutal civil war (1991-2002) may have shaped President Bio’s views on conflict resolution and international diplomacy.
“After all the fighting, after all the destruction, we resolved our problems at the negotiating table,” he reflected, emphasizing the importance of dialogue and consensus-building.
Drawing from Sierra Leone’s experience, he envisioned Africa playing an important role in global peace and security. “We have learned quite a lot—partnership, multilateralism, dialogue, and the need to build consensus.
“What we are bringing to the table within the UN Security Council is how we can be a bridge, how we can support multilateralism as a way for peace and security around the world.”
Women’s empowerment
Beyond global governance, Sierra Leone has adopted progressive gender policies under President Bio’s leadership. For example, the country passed a law mandating, among other provisions, that at least 30 percent of positions in both the private and public sectors, including in the cabinet, be held by women—a huge step toward gender equality.
Earlier this year, Sierra Leone also enacted a law banning child marriage.
“It would be wrong for us to talk about development if you keep more than half of your population in the kitchen or do not empower them enough to be part of the force that is going to change the nation,” he declared.
Empowering women, he stressed, begins with education. This focus on education is part of a broader strategy to transform Sierra Leone’s human capital, which President Bio considers the nation’s most valuable resource.
He said: “When you talk about Sierra Leone, you think of diamonds, gold, and other natural resources. I have said to my nation, yes, these are precious minerals, but the most important resources we have in this country are the people.”
Climate change
As a leader of one of the world’s most climate-vulnerable countries, President Bio highlighted Sierra Leone’s challenges in handling increasingly severe weather patterns. “When it rains, it rains so heavily that it overwhelms the infrastructure. We’ve seen cars floating, we’ve seen houses swept away,” he noted, drawing parallels with similar disasters in more developed nations.
In response, Sierra Leone has launched a nationwide climate action campaign focusing on reforestation, improving drainage systems, and educating the public on the importance of the environment.
“Combating climate change requires collective action, both locally and globally,” he emphasized.
On the issue of capital flight from Africa, President Bio underscored his deep sense of pride in African identity and potential. He urged Africans to acquire knowledge and skills from the West and to bring back those lessons to build their societies back in Africa.
“Home is home. Nobody’s going to fix that home. We have to fix that home,” he insisted.
All six African sub-regions have experienced an increase in the temperature trends over the past six decades, leading to severe water stresses, not enough food and deepening poverty. Credit: Joyce Chimbi/IPS
by Joyce Chimbi (nairobi)
Inter Press Service
NAIROBI, Sep 05 (IPS) – With fewer than 100 days to go to COP29, the highest decision-making body on climate issues under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), is getting shorter and the need for creative and innovative solutions to protect lives and livelihoods is extremely urgent.
The State of the Climate in Africa 2023 report shows all six African sub-regions have experienced an increase in the temperature trends over the past six decades. In Africa, 2023 was one of the three warmest years in 124 years, leading to unprecedented climatic carnage. The consequences are such that there is not enough food, deepening poverty, damage, displacement and loss of life.
But where many see challenges, there are also opportunities.
Speaking to the African Ministerial Conference on the Environment (AMCEN) in Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire, today, Simon Stiell, Executive Secretary of UN Climate Change, said “climate action is the single greatest economic opportunity of this century. It can and should be the single greatest opportunity for Africa to lift up people, communities, and economies after centuries of exploitation and neglect.”
“The opportunity is immense. But so too are the costs for African nations of unchecked global heating. The continent has been warming at a faster rate than the global average. From Algeria to Zambia, climate-driven disasters are getting worse, inflicting the most suffering on those who did least to cause them.”
Jointly launched by the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa (ECA), the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the African Union Commission on September 2, 2024, at the 12th Climate Change and Development in Africa (CCDA12) Conference, the climate report shows Africa is disproportionately affected by the climate crises as the continent is warming at a rate that is slightly faster than the global average.
The year 2023 was the warmest on record in many countries, including Mali, Morocco, the United Republic of Tanzania, and Uganda. The warming has been most rapid in North Africa, with Morocco experiencing the highest temperature anomaly.
The report indicates that parts of Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Nigeria, Cameroon, Ethiopia, Madagascar, Zambia, Angola, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo experienced severe drought in 2023. Following severe droughts in the Greater Horn of Africa, three countries, including Kenya, Somalia and Ethiopia, experienced extensive and severe flooding, with at least 352 deaths and 2.4 million displaced people reported.
Amidst the far-reaching devastating loss and damage, the UN Climate Chief emphasised that in Africa, as in all regions, the climate crisis is an economic sinkhole, sucking the momentum out of economic growth and that in fact, many African nations are losing up to 5 percent of GDP as a result of climate impacts. It is African nations and people who pay the heaviest price.
Simon Stiell, Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), says COP29 in Baku must signal that the climate crisis is core business for every government, with financial solutions to match. UN Photo/Loey Felipe
Placing additional burden on poverty alleviation efforts, which could in turn significantly hamper growth, the report shows many countries are diverting “up to 9 percent of their budgets into unplanned expenditures to respond to extreme weather events. By 2030, it is estimated that up to 118 million extremely poor people—or those living on less than USD 1.90 per day—will be exposed to drought, floods and extreme heat in Africa if adequate response measures are not put in place.”
Putting it into perspective, Stiell said, “Consider food production being hit hard, contributing to the re-emergence of famine, while also pushing up global prices, and with them inflation and the cost of living. Desertification and habitat destruction are driving forced movements of people. Supply chains are already being hit hard by spiralling climate impacts,” he said.
Further cautioning that “it would be entirely incorrect for any world leader—especially in the G20—to think: although incredibly sad, ultimately it is not my problem. The economic and political reality—in an interdependent world—is we are all in this crisis together. We rise together, or we fall together. But if the climate and economic crises are globally interlinked. So too are the solutions.”
In sub-Saharan Africa alone, it is estimated that climate adaptation will cost USD 30 billion to USD 50 billion, which translates to two to three percent of the regional GDP per year over the next decade. With COP28 having concluded the first-ever stocktake of global climate action—a mid-term review of progress towards the 2015 Paris Agreement—COP29 has been dubbed the ‘finance COP’—an opportunity to align climate finance contributions with estimated global needs.
COP29 will also be an opportunity to build on previous success, especially in the heels of a most successful COP28, whose ambitious commitments include: to transition away from all fossil fuels quickly but fairly; to triple renewable energy and double energy efficiency; and to go from responding to climate impacts to truly transformative adaptation.
While recognizing these big commitments, Stiell said delivering on them will unlock a goldmine of human and economic benefits that includes cleaner, more reliable and affordable energy across Africa. More jobs, stronger local economies, underpinning more stability and opportunity, especially for women. That electrification and lighting at night in the home means children can do homework, boosting education outcomes, with major flow-on productivity gains driving stronger economic growth.
“Cooking with traditional fuels emits greenhouse gases roughly equivalent to global aviation or shipping. It also contributes to 3 million premature deaths per year. It would cost 4 billion US dollars annually to fix this in Africa—an outstanding investment on any accounting,” he said.
Further stressing the need to link nature-based climate solutions with biodiversity protection and land restoration, as this will drive progress right across the 17 Sustainable Development Goals. Yet, he reiterated, African nations’ vast potential to drive forward climate solutions is being thwarted by an epidemic of underinvestment.
“Of the more than USD400 billion spent on clean energy last year, only USD2.6 billion went to African nations. Renewable energy investment in Africa needs to grow at least fivefold by 2030. COP29 in Baku must signal that the climate crisis is core business for every government, with finance solutions to match,” Stiell emphasized.
“It is time to flip the script. From potential climate tipping points to exponential changes in business, investment, and growth. Changes that will further strengthen African nations’ climate leadership and vital role in global climate solutions, on all fronts. Your role at COP29—and your voices in the lead-up—are more important than ever, to help guide our process to the highest-ambition outcomes the whole world needs.”
Secretary-General António Guterres (second from right) visits Tonga, where he attended the Pacific Islands Forum.
Credit: UN Photo/Kiara Worth
by Catherine Wilson (sydney & nuku’alofa)
Inter Press Service
SYDNEY & NUKU’ALOFA, Aug 30 (IPS) – Three months ahead of the COP29 United Nations (UN) Climate Change Conference, the United Nations Secretary-General, António Guterres, has called for an emergency response from the international community as new data from the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) reveals a critical deterioration in the state of the climate.
Scientists have called for limiting the global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels to prevent overheating of the atmosphere and a damaging rise in sea levels. But, due to inaction on reducing greenhouse gas emissions, there is an 80 percent chance that the 1.5 degree threshold will be breached within the next five years, reports the WMO.
“This is a crazy situation: rising seas are a crisis entirely of humanity’s making. A crisis that will soon swell to an almost unimaginable scale with no lifeboat to take us back to safety,” the UN Secretary-General declared in Nuku’alofa, the capital of Tonga, a Polynesian nation of about 106,000 people located southeast of Fiji, on Monday. He has been on the ground in the Pacific Islands, witnessing firsthand how people’s lives are hanging in the balance as they suffer a relentless battering of climate extremes, such as cyclones, floods, rising seas and hotter temperatures.
“Today’s reports confirm that relative sea levels in the southwestern Pacific have risen even more than the global average, in some locations by more than double the global increase in the past 30 years,” Guterres said. “If we save the Pacific, we also save ourselves. The world must act and answer the SOS before it is too late.”
According to a newly released UN report, Surging Seas in a Warming World, the increase in the global mean sea level was 9.4 cm, but in the southwest Pacific it was more than 15 cm between 1993 and 2023. Expanding oceans, due to melting Arctic and Antarctic ice, are projected “to cause a large increase in the frequency and severity of episodic flooding in almost all locations in the Pacific Small Island Developing States in the coming decades.” Ninety percent of Pacific Islanders live within 5 kilometres of coastlines, leaving them highly exposed to encroaching seas. Climate change impacts pose a serious threat to human life, livelihoods and food security, and the implications for increasing poverty and loss and damage are ‘profound and far-reaching,’ the report claims.
For years, Pacific Island leaders have led the way in calling for world leaders and industrialized nations to take rigorous action to halt the increasing carbon dioxide emissions destroying earth’s atmosphere. In Tonga, the Secretary-General joined many of them at the 53rd Pacific Islands Forum Leaders’ summit on the 26-27 August, including the summit’s host and Prime Minister of Tonga, Hon. Siaosi Sovaleni, Papua New Guinea’s Prime Minister, James Marape, Samoa’s leader, Fiame Naomi Mata’afa and Tuvalu’s PM, Feleti Teo. And he took the opportunity to amplify their voices and their climate leadership. ‘Greenhouse gases are causing ocean heating, acidification and rising seas. But the Pacific Islands are showing the way to protect our climate, our planet and our ocean,’ he said.
The UN chief took time to listen to the voices of local communities and youth, gaining valuable insights into how the people of Tonga are responding to climate extremes and disasters.
In January 2022, a tsunami, triggered by the eruption of an undersea volcano known as Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha’apai, descended on Tonga. It reached the main island of Tongatapu and others, affecting 80 percent of the country’s population, destroying livestock and agricultural land and causing damage of more than USD 125 million. Guterres met with people in the coastal villages of Kanokupolu and Ha’atafu, which were devastated when the tsunami swept through and surveyed the ruins of beach resorts and coastal infrastructure while witnessing the resilience and determination of those who have rebuilt their homes and lives.
Two years ago, the UN also launched ‘Early Warnings for All’, a project aimed at installing early warning systems in every country by 2027 in order to save lives and prevent damage.
“With the increase in the intensity of tropical cyclones and flooding , simple weather forecasting is not enough for people to prepare for these natural disasters,” Arti Pratap, an expert on tropical cyclones who lectures in Geospatial Science at the University of the South Pacific in Fiji, told IPS. She said it was important to “focus on building the capacity of communities to make use of the information provided by national meteorological services in the Pacific on an hourly, daily and monthly basis for decision-making.”
UN Secretary-General António Guterres visits a house in Lalomanu that has been abandoned due to storm damage and flooding as a result of climate change during his trip to Samoa. Credit: UN Photo/Kiara Worth
Many farmers, for instance, “tend to rely on readily available traditional knowledge on weather and climate and its interaction with the environment around them, which they are familiar with. However, traditional knowledge may not be sufficient in the background of global warming,” Pratap said.
The UN initiative involves the setting up of meteorological observation stations, ocean sensors and radars to better predict extreme weather and disaster events. According to the UN, providing 24 hours’ notice of an approaching disaster can reduce damage by 30 percent. As part of the project, Guterres launched a new weather radar at Tonga’s International Airport.
His week-long tour of the Pacific Islands, which also included time in Samoa, New Zealand and East Timor, was an opportune moment for Guterres to open conversations about the goals that will be on the table at COP29, to be held in Baku, Azerbaijan, on 11-22 November.
The key priorities of this year’s climate summit will be, among others, limiting the global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius and achieving broad agreement on the scale and provision of climate finance. ‘The one thing that is very clear in my presence here is to be able to say loud and clear from the Pacific Islands to the big emitters that it is totally unacceptable, with devastating impacts of climate change, to go on increasing emissions,’ Guterres declared in Nuku’alofa on August 26, 2024.
And, for many Pacific Islanders, gaining better access to climate finance is vital. The development organization, Pacific Community, reports that the region will require at least USD 2 billion per year to implement climate resilience and adaptation projects and transition to renewable energy. This far exceeds what the Pacific is currently receiving in climate finance, which is about USD 220 million per annum.
“Despite the commendable pledges from the United Nations and world leaders, such as the Paris Agreement, the existing global finance mechanisms still hinder community-based and youth organizations from accessing critical support,” Mahoney Mori, Chairman of the Pacific Youth Council, told local media during a meeting between the UN Chief and Pacific youth leaders in Tonga’s capital.
‘As a first step, all developed countries must honor their commitment to double adaptation finance to at least USD 40 billion per year by 2025,’ the UN Secretary General said on World Environment Day on June 24.
Tonga’s Prime Minister summed up the views of many in the Pacific as world attention focused on his island nation with the visit of the UN Secretary-General: “We need a lot more action than just words,’ he said at the Pacific leaders meeting. Referring to a minor earthquake that shook the islands as leaders converged on Tonga, he added, “We put on a show with the rain and a bit of flooding and also shook you guys up a little bit by that earthquake, just to wake you up to the reality of what we have to face here in the Pacific.”
WASHINGTON, Aug 27 (IPS) – At least 55 governments in the past decade have restricted the freedom of movement for people they deem as threats, including journalists, according to a Freedom House report published last Thursday.
Governments control freedom of movement via travel bans, revoking citizenship, document control and denial of consular services, the report found. All the tactics are designed to coerce and punish government critics, according to Jessica White, the report’s London-based co-author.
“This is a type of tactic that really shows the vindictive and punitive nature of some countries,” White said. This form of repression “is an attempt to really stifle peoples’ ability to speak out freely from wherever they are.”
Belarus, China, India, Nicaragua, Russia, Rwanda and Saudi Arabia are among the countries that engage in this form of repression, the report found. Freedom House based its findings in part on interviews with more than 30 people affected by mobility controls.
Travel bans are the most common tactic, according to White, with Freedom House identifying at least 40 governments who prevent citizens leaving or returning to the country.
Revoking citizenship is another strategy, despite being prohibited by international law. The Nicaraguan government in 2023 stripped more than 200 political prisoners of their citizenship shortly after deporting them to the United States.
Among them were Juan Lorenzo Holmann, head of Nicaragua’s oldest newspaper, La Prensa. “It is as if I do not exist anymore. It is another attack on my human rights,” he told VOA after being freed. “But you cannot do away with the person’s personality. In the Nicaraguan constitution, it says that you cannot wipe out a person’s personal records or take away their nationality. I feel Nicaraguan, and they cannot take that away from me.”
Before being expelled from his own country, Lorenzo had spent 545 days in prison, in what was widely viewed as a politically motivated case.
Blocking access to passports and other travel documents is another tactic. In one example, Hong Kong in June canceled the passports of six pro-democracy activists who were living in exile in Britain.
In some cases, governments refuse to issue people passports to trap them in the country. And in cases where the individual is already abroad, embassies deny passport renewals to block the individual from traveling anywhere, including back home.
Myanmar’s embassy in Berlin, for instance, has refused to renew the passport of Ma Thida, a Burmese writer in exile in Germany. Ma Thida told VOA earlier this year she believes the refusal is in retaliation for her writing.
White said Ma Thida’s case was a classic example of mobility restrictions. For now, the German government has issued a passport reserved for people who are unable to obtain a passport from their home country — which White applauded but said is still rare.
“Our ability to freely leave and return to our home country is something that in democratic societies, people often take for granted. It’s one of our fundamental human rights, but it’s one that is being undermined and violated across many parts of the world,” White said.
Mobility restrictions can have devastating consequences, including making it difficult to work, travel and visit family. What makes matters even worse is the emotional toll, according to White.
“There is a huge psychological impact,” White said. “A lot of our interviewees mention especially the pain of being separated from family members and not being able to return to their country.”
In the report, Freedom House called on democratic governments to impose sanctions on actors that engage in mobility controls.
White said that democratic governments should do more to help dissidents, including by providing them with alternative travel documents if they can’t obtain them from their home countries.
ROME, Aug 15 (IPS) – Corinne Fleischer, WFP’s regional director for the Middle East, North Africa and Eastern Europe, describes Gaza as “a terrible situation getting worse.” Over the past two weeks, 21 United Nations World Food Programme (WFP) food distribution points have been closed under evacuation orders.
“UNRWA says that 86% of the Strip is under an evacuation order,” she says on a video call from her office in Cairo. Fleischer visited the enclave in July.” 2 million people are crammed into 14% of the territory.”
Despite Immense Challenges, WFP Continues to Assist Gazans
With continuous evacuation orders forcing WFP to uproot food distribution sites, precise targeting of the most vulnerable groups becomes challenging. We provide ready-to-eat food, hot meals and nutrition support to breastfeeding women and small children.
Mohammed was severely injured in the conflict but all efforts to evacuate him for medical treatment failed. His family fully depends on food from WFP to survive.
“We support partners in almost 80 kitchens, where they cook meals, pack and distribute them to people in camps,” Fleischer explains. She previously visited Gaza last December. “Then, it was really about how do we bring food in – that’s still very much the case,” she says. “Now, at least we have a dedicated WFP operation on the ground.” Our main accomplishment? “We have helped prevent full-scale famine from happening,” she says.
There are currently nearly 500,000 people at IPC5/Catastrophe, the highest grade of food insecurity on the global standard for measuring food insecurity – down from 1.1 million people earlier this year.
Fleischer is keen to highlight the positive impacts of humanitarian supplies making it through.”Right now, we don’t bring enough food into Gaza,” she says. “We don’t bring in what we plan for the month because we don’t have enough crossing points open. We need all the crossings open and at full capacity.”
“Operations are super complicated,” Fleischer says. “We work in a war zone. Roads are destroyed. We are waiting hours at checkpoints for green lights to move.”
WFP, she stresses, also works to support the wider humanitarian community. “We are leading the Logistics Cluster (the interagency coordination mechanism) and supporting partners to bring in their goods through the Jordan corridor. We are receiving their goods in the north at the Zikim crossing point. We’re helping them in Kerem Shalom. So, of course, we’re helping with fuel supplies too.”
Nowhere Is Safe in Gaza
“Gazans cannot get out, and they’re asking to get out,” Fleischer says. “They’re beyond exhausted. There is no space – one makeshift tent after the other up to the sea. Streets are teeming with people.” Meanwhile, the breakdown of sewage systems, lack of water and waste management means diseases, such as Hepatitis A which is spreading among children, are allowed to fester.
Children eat fortified biscuits from WFP at a makeshift camp in southern Gaza.
“We are lucky that nothing has happened to our amazing staff – more than 200 UNRWA staff have been killed,” she says. “That is not acceptable.” She adds: “We have amazing security officers who advise management on which risks to avoid, so that we can stay and do our work safely and families can access our assistance safely. But the risks are high. Very high. We have bullets close to our convoys. We’re there repairing roads. We’re there moving with our trucks. We’re there reaching people. And it’s very dangerous.”
On the path to recovery, the private sector has a role to play, says Fleischer – take the reopening of shops. “If you think of a lifeline, of hope, or a sense of normalcy, it’s surely when the staple bread is back in the market,” she says of bakeries that have reopened with WFP support. “Bakeries need wheat flour, they need yeast, and diesel too – and that’s where we come in.”
High Prices Keep Basic Foods Out of Reach for Most Gazans
In the south of Gaza, “basic food items are slowly re-emerging in food markets. You can actually find vegetables, fruits in the markets but because prices are high, they remain out of reach for most,” she says “And in any case, people don’t have cash. There are no jobs. Even our own staff tell us, ‘We have a salary, but we can’t access cash’.”
Fleischer is keen for humanitarian efforts to reach a stage where people “stop eating things they have been eating for the past nine months” – to diversify diets heavily dependent on canned food (provided by WFP) and whatever people can get their hands on.
“This level of destruction I’ve never seen.”
Fleischer’s biggest fear for Gaza is “that there is no end to this . That we continue with ever less space for the people who already have nowhere to go back to. Even if they moved back to the north, where could they go?”
“Everything is flattened. There are no homes, it’s all destroyed. We need a long ceasefire that leads to peace so we can operate.”
After the Rafah incursion, many people returned to Khan Younis but there’s no means of living in the area. There are no homes left. Credit: WFP
Fleischer, who has served with WFP in Syria and Sudan’s Darfur Region, adds: “This level of destruction I’ve never seen. Hospitals and clinics are destroyed, food processing plants are destroyed. Everything is destroyed.”
Yet, “There is this never-give-up attitude from the people, from the families we serve,” she says. “I can’t believe children still run to you and laugh with you. They probably see in us hope that there will be an end to all this – a sign they are not forgotten.”
This story originally appeared on WFP’s Stories on August 8, 2024 and was written by the WFP Editorial Team.
Erico Platt looks at the disarmament exhibition that she staged, “Three Quarters of a Century After Hiroshima and Nagasaki: The Hibakusha—Brave Survivors Working for a Nuclear-Free World.” Credit: UNODA/Diane Barnes
by Thalif Deen (united nations)
Inter Press Service
UNITED NATIONS, Aug 01 (IPS) – The upcoming 79th anniversary of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which took place on August 6 and 9, 1945, remains a grim reminder of the destructive consequences of nuclear weapons.
The US bombings killed an estimated 90,000 to 210,000, with roughly half of the deaths occurring on the first day in Hiroshima.
But despite an intense global campaign for nuclear disarmament, the world has witnessed an increase in the number of nuclear powers from five—the US, UK, France, China and Russia—to nine, including India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel.
Is the continued worldwide anti-nuclear campaign an exercise in futility? And will the rising trend continue—with countries such as Iran, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and South Korea—as potential nuclear powers of the future?
South Africa is the only country that has voluntarily given up nuclear weapons after developing them. In the 1980s, South Africa produced six nuclear weapons, but dismantled them between 1989 and 1993. A number of factors may have influenced South Africa’s decision, including national security, international relations, and a desire to avoid becoming a pariah state.
But there is an equally valid argument that there have been no nuclear wars—only threats—largely because of the success of the world-wide anti-nuclear campaign, the role of the United Nations and the collective action by most of the 193 member states in adopting several anti-nuclear treaties.
According to the UN Office for Disarmament Affairs (UNODA), the United Nations has sought to eliminate weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) ever since the establishment of the world body. The first resolution adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1946 established a commission to deal with problems related to the discovery of atomic energy, among others.
The commission was to make proposals for, inter alia, the control of atomic energy to the extent necessary to ensure its use only for peaceful purposes.
Several multilateral treaties have since been established with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation and testing, while promoting progress in nuclear disarmament.
Jackie Cabasso, Executive Director, Western States Legal Foundation in Oakland, California, which monitors and analyzes US nuclear weapons programs and policies, told IPS: “As we approach the 79th anniversary of the U.S. atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the world is facing a greater danger of nuclear war than at any time since 1945.”
“The terrifying doctrine of “nuclear deterrence,” which should long ago have been delegitimized and relegated to the dustbin of history and replaced with multilateral, non-militarized common security, has metastasized into a pathological ideology brandished by nuclear-armed states and their allies to justify the perpetual possession and threatened use—including first use—of nuclear weapons,” she pointed out.
“It is more important than ever that we heed the warnings of the aging hibakusha (A-bomb survivors): What happened to us must never be allowed to happen to anyone again; nuclear weapons and human beings cannot co-exist; no more Hiroshimas, no more Nagasakis!”
This demands an irreversible process of nuclear disarmament. But to the contrary, all nuclear armed states are qualitatively and, in some cases, quantitatively upgrading their nuclear arsenals and a new multipolar arms race is underway, she noted.
“To achieve the elimination of nuclear weapons and a global society that is more fair, peaceful, and ecologically sustainable, we will need to move from the irrational fear-based ideology of deterrence to the rational fear of an eventual nuclear weapon use, whether by accident, miscalculation, or design.”
“We will also need to stimulate a rational hope that security can be redefined in humanitarian and ecologically sustainable terms that will lead to the elimination of nuclear weapons and dramatic demilitarization, freeing up tremendous resources desperately needed to address universal human needs and protect the environment.”
In this time of multiple global crises, “our work for the elimination of nuclear weapons must take place in a much broader framework, taking into account the interface between nuclear and conventional weapons and militarism in general, the humanitarian and long-term environmental consequences of nuclear war, and the fundamental incompatibility of nuclear weapons with democracy, the rule of law, and human wellbeing,” declared Cabasso.
Dr. M.V. Ramana, Professor and Simons Chair in Disarmament, Global and Human Security School of Public Policy and Global Affairs and Graduate Program Director, MPPGA at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, told IPS, “The glass is half-full or half-empty depending on how one looks at it.”
“The fact that we have avoided nuclear war since 1945 is also partly due to the persistence of the anti-nuclear movement. Historians like Lawrence Wittner have pointed to the many instances when governments have chosen nuclear restraint instead of unrestrained expansion.”
While South Africa is the only country that dismantled its entire nuclear weapons program, many countries—Sweden, for example—have chosen not to develop nuclear weapons even though they had the technical capacity to do so. They did so in part because of strong public opposition to nuclear weapons, which in turn is due to social movements supporting nuclear disarmament, he pointed out.
Thus, organizing for nuclear disarmament is not futile. Especially as we move into another era of conflicts between major powers, such movements will be critical to our survival, declared Ramana.
According to the UN, a group of elderly hibakusha, called Nihon Hidankyo, have dedicated their lives to achieving a non-proliferation treaty, which they hope will ultimately lead to a total ban on nuclear weapons.
“On an overcrowded train on the Hakushima line, I fainted for a while, holding in my arms my eldest daughter of one year and six months. I regained my senses at her cries and found no one else was on the train,” a 34-year-old woman testifies in the booklet. She was located just two kilometres from the Hiroshima epicenter.
Fleeing to her relatives in Hesaka, at age 24, another woman remembers that “people, with the skin dangling down, were stumbling along. They fell down with a thud and died one after another,” adding, “still now I often have nightmares about this, and people say, ‘it’s neurosis’.”
One man who entered Hiroshima after the bomb recalled in the exhibition “that dreadful scene—I cannot forget even after many decades.”
At a disarmament exhibition in UN Headquarters in New York, a visitor reads text about a young boy bringing his little brother to a cremation site in Nagasaki, Japan. Credit: UNODA/Erico Platt
A woman who was 25 years old at the time said, “When I went outside, it was dark as night. Then it got brighter and brighter, and I could see burnt people crying and running about in utter confusion. It was hell…I found my neighbor trapped under a fallen concrete wall… Only half of his face was showing. He was burned alive”.
The steadfast conviction of the Hidankyo remains: “Nuclear weapons are absolute evil that cannot coexist with humans. There is no choice but to abolish them.”
Addressing the UN Security Council last March, Secretary-General Antonio Guterres warned that with geopolitical tensions escalating the risk of nuclear warfare to its highest point in decades, reducing and abolishing nuclear weapons is the only viable path to saving humanity.
“There is one path—and one path only—that will vanquish this senseless and suicidal shadow once and for all. We need disarmament now,” he said, urging nuclear-weapon States to re-engage to prevent any use of a nuclear weapon, re-affirm moratoria on nuclear testing and “urgently agree that none of them will be the first to use nuclear weapons.”
He called for reductions in the number of nuclear weapons led by the holders of the largest arsenals—the United States and the Russian Federation—to “find a way back to the negotiating table” to fully implement the New Measures for the Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms, or START Treaty, and agree on its successor.
“When each country pursues its own security without regard for others, we create global insecurity that threatens us all,” he observed. Almost eight decades after the incineration of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, nuclear weapons still represent a clear danger to global peace and security, growing in power, range and stealth.”
“States possessing them are absent from the negotiating table, and some statements have raised the prospect of unleashing nuclear hell—threats that we must all denounce with clarity and force,” he said. Moreover, emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence and cyber and outer space domains have created new risks.”
From Pope Francis, who calls the possession of nuclear arms “immoral”, to the hibakusha, the brave survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, to Hollywood, where Oppenheimer brought the harsh reality of nuclear doomsday to vivid life for millions around the world, people are calling for an end to the nuclear madness. “Humanity cannot survive a sequel to Oppenheimer,” he warned.
When Nagasaki marked the 78th anniversary of the U.S. atomic bombing of the city last year, the mayor Shiro Suzuki, urged world powers to abolish nuclear weapons, saying nuclear deterrence also increases risks of nuclear war, according to an Associated Press (AP) report.
He called on the Group of Seven (G7) industrial powers to adopt a separate document on nuclear disarmament that called for using nuclear weapons as deterrence.
“Now is the time to show courage and make the decision to break free from dependence on nuclear deterrence,” Suzuki said in his peace declaration. “As long as states are dependent on nuclear deterrence, we cannot realize a world without nuclear weapons.”
Russia’s nuclear threat has encouraged other nuclear states to accelerate their dependence on nuclear weapons or enhance capabilities, further increasing the risk of nuclear war, and that Russia is not the only one representing the risk of nuclear deterrence, Suzuki said.
Suzuki, whose parents were hibakusha, or survivors of the Nagasaki attack, said knowing the reality of the atomic bombings is the starting point for achieving a world without nuclear weapons. He said the survivors’ testimonies are a true deterrent against nuclear weapons use, the AP report said.
This article is brought to you by IPS Noram, in collaboration with INPS Japan and Soka Gakkai International, in consultative status with UN ECOSOC.
Michelle Mokone (Left) & Morongwe Mokone (right). Credit: UN magazine
Opinion by Mkhululi Chimoio (united nations)
Inter Press Service
UNITED NATIONS, Jul 16 (IPS) – What started as a pastime desire to sell crafts at local markets, deeply rooted in the South African culture, has since blossomed to become an international business entity for two local women.
Two entrepreneurs take traditional African designs and sustainable materials and turn them into international success.
It took the Mokone sisters, Morongwe “Mo” (37) and Michelle (34), three years only to turn around their home decor business into an international business venture by leveraging on the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA).
AGOA allows entrepreneurs from Africa duty-free access to the US market. Approved by the US Congress in May 2000, the legislation sought to help improve the economies of these sub-Saharan African countries, as well as to improve economic relations between the US and participating countries on the African continent.
Africa Renewal* caught up with the two Mokone sisters who are beneficiaries of AGOA to hear how the initiative has changed their lives.
Morongwe and Michelle were raised in Mabopane, Pretoria. In 2016, they started their business ‘Mo’s Crib’ that produces hand-woven baskets, place mats, trays, and other homeware accessories, and selling them in at a local market. In 2019, they decided to pursue the business full-time.
Since then, their business has grown and currently has 12 full-time and 86 part-time employees.
Mo’s Crib uses African traditional designs and sustainable materials to make high-end decorative and homeware pieces inspired by nature. Their arty designs simple, yet modern and sophisticated, with many of their products having multiple purposes that prioritize functionality.
Mo’s Crib uses African traditional designs and sustainable materials to make high-end decorative and homeware pieces inspired by nature.
Green products
Most importantly, the business values sustainability – emphasizing on reusing, recycling and reducing waste, as well as using local talent and material to create employment opportunities. From their locally-sourced impala palm leaves to the material of their shipping boxes – the Mokone sisters promote sustainability and a greener society.
“Our business is deeply linked to our upbringing in South Africa, we draw inspiration from the African culture, nature, and our commitment to the local community,” Michelle told Africa Renewal.
Michelle, who is Mo’s Crib director of operations and supply chain added: “We transitioned our craft into entrepreneurship when we noticed the increased demand of our products at local markets. It was the passion for art and the desire to make a positive impact that propelled us to where we are today. We also saw an opportunity in retail as we wanted our products to be accessible, so we decided to partner with retailers to increase sales volumes and sell in bulk.”
The two sisters quit their jobs: Morongwe was an executive HR specialist while Michelle worked as an agricultural economist, to follow their dream and both credit their father, who was an entrepreneur himself, for the inspiration.
“Our father was an entrepreneur himself. Our drive to build a business of this kind with a sustainable imprint stem from our commitment to creating sustainable and ethical products. We are motivated by the opportunity to provide economic and educational opportunities to our employees whom we refer to as our team members, while at the same time promoting environmentally conscious practices. Our dedication to sustainability and empowering local communities has been the driving force behind our business,” said Michelle.
She explained how they finally made a breakthrough into the international market.
“In 2019, Mo’s Crib made its debut in international markets in France and the USA. It was an opportunity for Africa to showcase its products, promoting sustainable practices and potentially opening new revenue streams for the continent. Our breakthrough demonstrates that Africa can contribute to the global market while preserving its cultural heritage and promoting environmentally friendly products,” said Michelle.
She added: “We are still doing well in the local markets, but we always wanted that international breakthrough. AGOA provided us that platform. As it is, we are no longer just selling to local markets in Pretoria, Johannesburg or in South Africa alone; we are literally reaching the US and international platforms.”
Highlighting that through local businesses like Mo’s Cribs, age-old African crafts are given new life, and in doing so, preserve their heritage, Michelle, however, is urging businesswomen to carefully identify products that resonate with the international market.
“To benefit from AGOA, one must identify products that are in demand in the US and establish sustainable distribution channels. They must also partner with knowledgeable forwarding agents to maximize AGOA benefits,” she said.
“Since 2021, we have shipped a total of eight containers to the US. We are on track to ship two more containers soon. We also regularly ship a container to fulfill our orders for our online store, which is fulfilled through our warehouse in New Jersey, US.
“Although shipping is relatively expensive, especially for a small business that is 100% self-funded, we have benefited from the AGOA through significant market access. Currently, US orders constitute 60% of our overall revenue,” she added.
Mos Crib Products
AGOA renewal
According to South Africa’s minister of Trade, Industry and Competition, Ebrahim Patel, the US recently reached a preliminary 10-year agreement with African countries to extend their preferential trade access by another decade, pending approval by Congress.
“We reached a broad agreement on the need to extend AGOA for another 10 years,” Mr. Patel told a business forum in Johannesburg recently, adding that they were able to engage with policymakers from more than 30 sub-Saharan African countries and the US to enable African countries to continue exporting goods to the American market duty-free.
South Africa hosted the 20th AGOA Forum in Johannesburg from in November 2023 where Mr. Patel said South Africa was seeking to renew its AGOA membership which he said has been instrumental in improving the livelihoods of many entrepreneurs in the country.
The forum brought together over 5,000 participants comprising African ministers of trade, senior government officials, the US government delegation led by US Trade Representative (USTR) Ambassador Katherine Tai, US Congressional staffers, the private sector, the civil society, exhibitors in the ‘Made in Africa’ exhibition, procurers and investors.
“AGOA has helped South Africa and other sub-Saharan countries progressively. It has played a pivotal role in job creation in South Africa and the entire region,” he added.
At the same time, South Africa’s ministry of Small Business Development spokesperson, Cornelius Monama, said AGOA presents a great opportunity to promote emerging entrepreneurs and Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMMEs).
Trade under AGOA accounted for approximately 21% of South Africa’s total exports to the US in 2022. South African exports to the US under AGOA increased in value from US$2.0 billion in 2021 to US$3.0 billion in 2022,” he said.
Meanwhile, for Morongwe and Michelle, they are working on creating more opportunities and make a meaningful impact in their society. In addition to safeguarding the natural environment, the Mokone sisters are also committed to empowering the people in their community.
“We would like to grow our footprint beyond the USA. We want to enter new markets such as Europe and the United Arab Emirates. We plan to create 20 new jobs within the next two to three years,” concludes Michelle.
Source: Africa Renewal* which is published by the UN’s Department of Global Communications (DGC).
A police officer walks after using tear gas to disperse protesters during a demonstration over police killings of people protesting against Kenya’s proposed finance bill in Nairobi, June 27, 2024. Credit: Voice of America (VoA)
Opinion by Danny Bradlow (pretoria, south africa)
Inter Press Service
PRETORIA, South Africa, Jul 05 (IPS) – The recent Kenyan protests are a warning that the International Monetary Fund (IMF) is failing. The public does not think it is helping its member countries manage their economic and financial problems, which are being exacerbated by a rapidly changing global political economy.
To be sure, the IMF is not the only cause of Kenya’s problems with raising the funds to meet its substantial debt obligations and deal with its budget deficit. Other causes include the failure of the governing class to deal with corruption, to spend public finances responsibly and to manage an economy that produces jobs and improves the living standards of Kenya’s young population.
The country has also been hammered by drought, floods and locust infestations in recent years. In addition, its creditors are demanding that it continue servicing its large external debts despite its domestic challenges and a difficult international financial and economic environment.
Danny Bradlow
The IMF has provided financial support to Kenya. But the financing is subject to tough conditions which suggest that debt obligations matter more than the needs of long-suffering citizens. This is despite the IMF claiming that its mandate now includes helping states deal with issues like climate, digitalisation, gender, governance and inequality.
Unfortunately, Kenya is not an isolated case. Twenty-one African countries are receiving IMF support. In Africa, debt service, on average, exceeds the combined amounts governments are spending on health, education, climate and social services.
The tough conditions attached to IMF financing have led the citizens of Kenya and other African countries to conclude that a too powerful IMF is the cause of their problems. However, my research into the law, politics and history of the international financial institutions suggests the opposite: the real problem is the IMF’s decline in authority and efficacy.
Some history will help explain this and indicate a partial solution.
The history
When the treaty establishing the IMF was negotiated 80 years ago, it was expected to have resources equal to roughly 3% of global GDP. This was to help deal with the monetary and balance of payments problems of 44 countries. Today, the IMF is expected to help its 191 member countries deal with fiscal, monetary, financial and foreign exchange problems and with “new” issues like climate, gender and inequality.
To fulfil these responsibilities, its member states have provided the IMF with resources equal to only about 1% of global GDP.
The decline in its resources relative to the size of the global economy and of its membership has at least two pernicious effects.
The first is that it is providing its member states with less financial support than they require if they are to meet the needs of their citizens and comply with their legal commitments to creditors and citizens. The result is that the IMF remains a purveyor of austerity policies. It requires a country to make deeper spending cuts than would be needed if the IMF had adequate resources.
The second effect of declining resources is that it weakens the IMF’s bargaining position in managing sovereign debt crises. This is important because the IMF plays a critical role in such crises. It helps determine when a country needs debt relief or forgiveness, how big the gap between the country’s financial obligations and available resources is, how much the IMF will contribute to filling this gap and how much its other creditors must contribute.
When Mexico announced that it could not meet its debt obligations in 1982, the IMF stated that it would provide about a third of the money that Mexico needed to meet its obligations, provided its commercial creditors contributed the remaining funds. It was able to push the creditors to reach agreement with Mexico within months. It had sufficient resources to repeat the exercise in other developing countries in Latin America and eastern Europe.
The conditions that the IMF imposed on Mexico and the other debtor countries in return for this financial support created serious problems for these countries. Still, the IMF was an effective actor in the 1980s debt crisis.
Today, the IMF is unable to play such a decisive role. For example, it has provided Zambia with less than 10% of its financing needs. It has been four years since Zambia defaulted on its debt and, even with IMF support, it has not yet concluded restructuring agreements with all its creditors.
What is to be done?
The solution to this problem requires the rich countries to provide sufficient finances for the IMF to carry out its mandate. They must also surrender some control and make the organisation more democratic and accountable.
In the short term, the IMF can take two actions.
First, it must set out detailed policies and procedures that explain to its own staff, to its member states and to the inhabitants of these states what it can and will do. These policies should clarify the criteria that the IMF will use to determine when and how to incorporate climate, gender, inequality and other social issues into IMF operations.
They should also describe with whom it will consult, how external actors can engage with the IMF and the process it will follow in designing and implementing its operations. In fact, there are international norms and standards that the IMF can use to develop policies and procedures that are principled and transparent.
Second, the IMF must acknowledge that the issues raised by its expanded mandate are complex and that the risk of mistakes is high.
Consequently, the IMF needs a mechanism that can help it identify its mistakes, address their adverse impacts in a timely manner and avoid repeating them.
Currently, the IMF is the only multilateral financial institution without such a mechanism. It therefore lacks the means for identifying unanticipated problems in its operations when they can still be corrected and for learning about the impact of its operations on the communities and people it is supposed to be helping.
Danny Bradlow is Professor/Senior Research Fellow, Centre for Advancement of Scholarship, University of Pretoria
Credit: Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR)
Opinion by Azza Karam (new york)
Inter Press Service
NEW YORK, Jun 24 (IPS) – “Holy War” is how the Patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church referred to the Russian war on the Ukraine, and indeed, on “the West”1 . “Holy War”, aka “jihad” is a foundational principle of “the Base” or “al-Qaeda”, which has grown into a non-state hydra with too many names and atrocities to list here (but if you are curious, one of the hydra faces is ISIS).
In a recent opinion piece published in Foreign Policy, columnist Caroline de Gruyter noted that “Israel and Palestine Are Now in a Religious War”, in her attempt to argue why the Middle East conflict has been getting increasingly brutal, and increasingly hard to solve.
The intersection between holiness and war is even more nuanced in Zvi Bar’el’s Opinion piece in Haaretz, when he notes that “the war in Gaza is no longer about revenge for the murder of 1,200 Israelis or the hostages.
If they all die, along with hundreds of more soldiers, the price would still be justified for the Jewish Jihad waging a war for Gaza’s resettlement” . Hamas’ own name –the acronym for Harakat al-Muqawama al-Islamiya (Islamic Resistance Movement) – needs no elaboration. Neither does Lebanon’s Hizbullah (Party of God).
In India, a report by the Indian Citizens and Lawyers Initiative (in April of 2023), entitled “Routes of Wrath: Weaponising Religious Processions”, notes
Indian history is rife with instances of religious processions that led to communal strife, riots, inexcusable violence, arson, destruction of property and the tragic deaths of innocent residents of the riot-hit areas. There have been horrific riots and bloodletting caused by other factors too, most prominently the anti-Sikh pogrom of 1984 and the Gujarat pogrom of 2002, but no cause of interfaith riots has been as recurrent and widespread as the religious procession. This is as true of pre-Independence India as during the 75 years since we became a free nation…Post-Independence, we have faced numerous communal riots in diverse parts of India, under different political regimes, and the vast majority of these have been caused by the deliberate choice of communally-sensitive routes by processionists, and the pusillanimity of the Police in dealing with such demands, or even their collusion and connivance in licencing such routes.2
Already back in August of 1988, in an article entitled “Holy War Against India”, explicitly speaks of “Sikh terrorism” in the Punjab, noting that it “took about a thousand lives in 1987 and more than a thousand in the first five months of 1988.
If it continues at the present rate, Sikh terrorism in the Punjab will have cost more lives in two years than the IRA campaign in Northern Ireland has cost in twenty.” 3 Speaking of Northern Ireland, the marching season remains a flashpoint among Catholics and Protestants.
Politicised religion, or religionised politics – whence religious discourse is part of political verbiage, tactics, expedient alliances, sometimes informing foreign policy priorities, occasionally used to justify conflict – are not new phenomena. In fact, they may well be one of the oldest features of politics, governance – and warmaking.
The Crusades against Muslim expansion in the 11th century were recognized as a “holy war” or a bellum sacrum, by later writers in the 17th century. The early modern wars against the Ottoman Empire were seen as a seamless continuation of this conflict by contemporaries. Religion and politics are the oldest bedfellows known to humankind.
What is relatively new, is that after the 100-year war in Europe, and the subsequent moves towards secularisation or the so-called ‘separation of Church and State’ (again, really only in parts of Europe), provided a false sense of the dominance of secular governance in modern times.
Yet, even in the citadels of secular Western Europe, a relationship binding Church and State always existed, for the religious institutions and their affiliated social structures, remain critical social service providers – and humanitarian actors – till today. A reality now understood to be relevant in all parts of our world.
Nevertheless, what we are seeing today is a resurgence of religious politics, and the politics of religion, in almost all corners of the world. Before the Russian Orthodox Church proclaimed its “holy war” narrative, the reference to religion and politics almost always focused on Muslim-majority contexts, specifically on Iran, Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan.
Other realities would often go unnoticed, or somehow deemed as ‘odd’ or one-time phenomena – for instance the fact that the 2016 US elections delivered a Trump administration with full and public backing by a significant part of the Evangelical movement (many of whom are backing a potential comeback of him now); or the fact that related Evangelical counterparts backed Bolsenaro’s rise to power in Brazil; or the fact that religious arguments against abortion remain a key US electoral feature for decades; or the fact that a number of right-leaning anti-immigrant political discourses and blatant white supremacist politics have religious backing in parts of Europe and Latin America.
Was it perhaps that since these took place in ‘white’ and Christian-majority polities, somehow set these aside from being factored as part of the global resurgence of religious politics?
Whatever the case may be, it is time to smell that particularly strong brew of coffee, now. And as we do so, we are also obliged to note that it is no coincidence that this ‘brew’ is taking place at a time of remarkable social and political polarisation in many societies.
Indeed. we speak of multiple and simultaneous crisis (e.g. climate change, catastrophic governance, wars, famines, rampant inequalities, soaring human displacement, nuclear fears, systemic racism, rising multiple violence, drug wars, proliferation of arms and weapons, misogyny, etc.) and we also acknowledge the wilting multilateral influence to confront these. But as we acknowledge these, we must also recognise that social cohesion is a lasting and tragic victim.
Some governmental, non-governmental and intergovernmental entities have turned to religion(s) as a possible panacea. Religious leaders are being convened in multiple capitals (at significant cost) in almost all corners of the world.
Regularly touting the peacefulness and the unparalleled supremacy of their respective moral standpoints. Religious NGOs are being sought out, supported and partnered with more regularly to help address multiple crisis – especially humanitarian, educational, public health, sanitation, and child-focused efforts.
Interfaith initiatives are competing among each other, and with other secular ones, for grants from governments and philanthropists in the United States, Europe, Africa, many parts of Asia (with the notable exception of China), and the Middle East. Engaging, or partnering with religious entities is the new normal.
But just as the largely secular efforts we lived through (and some of us served for decades) in the 1960s to the 1990s, did not realise a brave new world, religious ones, on their own, cannot do so either. Especially not with the kind of historical baggage and contemporary narratives of holy war, we are living with now.
It is time we re-consider, re-engage and re-envision a poetics of solidarity rooted an abiding adherence to (and re-education about) all human rights for all peoples at all times. What would that entail?
Dr. Azza Karam is President and CEO of Lead Integrity; a Professor and Affiliate with the Ansari Institute of Religion and Global Affairs at Notre Dame University; and a member of the UN Secretary General’s High Level Advisory Board on Effective Multilateralism.
COLOMBO, Sri Lanka, Jun 18 (IPS) – Today Small Island Developing States (SIDS) and the environmental threats they confront require our urgent attention —and the global spotlight needs to be trained deliberately and maintained consistently on their concerns, in particular, climate change, marine biological diversity loss and sustainable development goals (SDGs).
A world in which other pressing matters compete for attention, this challenge could easily be neglected.
There is a significant community of small island states in the world. The United Nations recognizes 39 of them. The aggregate population of all the SIDS is 65 million, slightly less than 1% of the world’s population but nevertheless a population that requires our attention.
They share similar sustainable development challenges, including small populations, limited local resources, including land, remoteness, susceptibility to frequent natural disasters, easy vulnerability to external shocks, excessive dependence on external trade and almost all are highly threatened by climate change.
SIDS were recognized as a special case both for their environment and development challenges at the?1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development? in Rio de Janeiro.?
High import and export costs will continue to be a factor in their economies, while their dependence on external markets due to the narrow resource bases make them particularly vulnerable. Since they control sea areas (in particularly the Exclusive Economic Zones),on average 28 times the size of their land mass, much of their natural resources come from the seas and oceans that surround them.
Therefore, the seas and oceans are critical from their perspective. Vulnerability to exogenous economic shocks and fragile land and marine ecosystems make SIDS particularly susceptible to biodiversity loss and climate change.
The Blue Economy, defined by World Bank as the “sustainable use of ocean resources to benefit economies, livelihoods and ocean ecosystem health” becomes particularly relevant to SIDS.
Over 40 percent of SIDS are affected by, or are on the edge of, unsustainable levels of debt, severely constraining their ability to invest in resilience, climate action and sustainable development. This is why they have been recognised as a special group that requires concentrated assistance.
The four main geographical regions in which SIDS are concentrated are the Caribbean, the Pacific, the Atlantic, and the Indian Ocean.?
4th International Conference on SIDS, 27 – 30 May, 2004
In his opening address as the President of the 4th International Conference on SIDS, Gaston Browne, Prime Minister of Antigua and Barbuda, forcefully underlined the importance of its theme — “Charting the Course Toward Resilient Prosperity”.
Stressing that such States are “on the front lines of a battlefield of a confluence of crises — none of which they have caused or created” — he said that the small size of such States, limited financial resources and constrained human capital, place them at a marked disadvantage on the global stage. Further, their journey towards development has been repeatedly disrupted by monumental crises, among them the financial meltdown of 2008 and the unprecedented COVID-19 pandemic.
Reflecting the sentiments of many, he called for urgent, multilateral solutions, and he observed that those present are gathered “not only to reiterate challenges, but also to demand and enact solutions”. The Global North, in particular, must honour its commitments — including providing $1 billion in climate financing to assist with adaptation and mitigation.
Gaston Browne identified a clear gap in the oft expressed pious sentiments of the international community and actual action taken to implement these.
SIDS Dependency on the Seas and Oceans
Traditionally most small island states, surrounded by the seas and oceans, have been dependent on the oceans far more than bigger states for most of their needs. The seas provide a significant part of their food, including, fish, crustaceans, sea weed, etc, energy needs are imported across the seas, introduced and imported food, tourism which plays a considerable economic role, daily essentials and exports.
Sea food is a critical source of protein for SIDs. Today lobsters, prawns, scallops, mussels, etc are also a major income source for fishermen and a critical foreign exchange earner.
The income and protein source provided by the seas and oceans is threatened in some areas by overfishing, pollution, predatory and unregulated fishing by distant water fishers and, critically, by the impacts of climate change. The warming of the oceans is already having a devastating impact on coral reefs, so important as spawning grounds for myriads of fish and other economically important species.
Warming seas are likely to cause some fish species to migrate away from their traditional habitats and others to become extinct. Tuna migration habits in the Pacific Ocean, for example, are changing due to the heating of the ocean. This could have an enormous impact on Pacific small island states whose food supplies and economies depend on the tuna catch, and could cause an estimated $140 million loss in average government revenue per year.
Given the importance of the marine environment to small island states, it is vital that the exploitation of the resource takes place sustainably. Once a vital resource of this nature is lost, it is unlikely that it will recover in a short time, if ever. International agreements and arrangements in place at present with need to implemented with vigour and other arrangements may have to be put in place.
International Action and Options for SIDS
With their small economies, SIDS are at the mercy of the elements and with limited fall back options. A single hurricane could wipe out the economies of some small island states. Despite their minimal historical greenhouse gas emissions, SIDS face some of the most severe impacts of climate change, with serious loss and damage in the form of destroyed infrastructure, economic and cultural loss, loss of lives and livelihoods, loss of biodiversity and forced displacement.
It is now widely acknowledged that the depletion of the resource of the seas and oceans will result in numerable and unpredictable consequences including, massive unemployment, increased poverty, malnutrition, overall negative economic impacts, economic migration which will have repercussions for neighboring countries and possible community unrest.
Some international initiatives offer adaptation options to the SIDS.
The UN Environment Programme (UNEP) established the Regional Seas Programme in 1974. (The Programme now administers this regional mechanism for the conservation of the marine and coastal environment to address the accelerating marine pollution). 18 regions participate in the Programme, of which 14 Regional Seas programmes are underpinned by legally binding conventions. The participating regions include, South Asian Seas, South-East Pacific, Western Africa and the Wider Caribbean where many of the SIDS are located.
Following the adoption of Agenda 2030, the Regional Seas Programme seeks to assist Member States in achieving the ocean-related SDGs by coordinating national actions at the regional level. SIDS stand to benefit considerably from these programmes. Thus the Regional Seas programmes set the Regional Seas Strategic Directions (2017-2020) and decided to:
1. Reduce marine pollution of all kinds in line with the SDG Goal 14.1.
2. Create increased resilience of people, marine and coastal ecosystems, and their health and productivity, in line with the SDG Goal 13 and decisions made at the UNFCCC COP21.
3. Develop integrated, ecosystem-based regional ocean policies and strategies for sustainable use of marine and coastal resources, paying close attention to blue growth.
4. Enhance effectiveness of Regional Seas Conventions and Action Plans as regional platforms for supporting integrated ocean policies and management.
Under the Paris Accords of 2015, developed country Parties to the Accords agreed to provide financial resources to assist highly vulnerable country Parties with regard to both mitigation and adaptation consistent with their existing obligations under the Convention.
The UNEP Adaptation Finance GAP Report estimates that adaptation finance needs in developing countries will reach $140 billion – $300 billion per year by 2030, and $280 billion to $500 billion per year by 2050. SIDS, if they are proactive in the search for funding, are expected to be a major beneficiary under this commitment.
It is recalled that under the Paris Accords, developed countries reaffirmed the commitment to mobilize $100 billion a year in climate finance by 2020, and agreed to continue mobilising finance at this level until 2025. This commitment included finance for the Green Climate Fund, which is a part of the UNFCCC, and also for a variety of other public and private programmes. This amount has not been reached at all.
The Paris Accords also recognize loss and damage. Loss and damage can stem from extreme weather events, or from slow-onset events such as the loss of land to sea level rise for low-lying islands and the warming of the seas. Tuna migration habits in the Pacific Ocean, for example, are changing due to the heating of the ocean.
The push to address loss and damage as a distinct issue in the Paris Agreement came from the Alliance of Small Island States and the Least Developed Countries, whose economies and livelihoods are most vulnerable to the negative effects of climate change.
At Cop 27 in 2022 countries agreed to establish a Loss and Damage Fund, which would provide financial assistance to climate-vulnerable countries. The fund was officially operationalized at Cop 28 in November 2023. The major beneficiaries can be the SIDS.
In 2021, Tuvalu in the Pacific and Antigua and Barbuda in the Caribbean established a Commission for Small Island States on Climate Change and International Law. The intention is to take claims for loss and damage to international judicial tribunals.
Vanuatu is also leading a campaign to ask the International Court of Justice for an advisory opinion on climate change. This initiative had its beginnings in2014 under the sponsorship of Mauritius.
Now we have an additional development which should make us think deeper.
June 2023, the United Nations adopted a new treaty under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the Agreement on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction (‘BBNJ’). Today, this is also known as the High Seas Biodiversity Treaty.
During the negotiations on this treaty, while the developed North focused more on Marine Protected Areas, and these are important, the South was equally interested in the equitable sharing of the benefits of exploiting the mega genetic pool of the oceans.
Properly managed, implemented in the right spirit, the sharing of benefits under this treaty could bring considerable material rewards to SIDS. They will benefit considerably if the sharing of benefits of the exploitation of BBNJ works well. It has been said that a single bucket of sea water could contain more genetic material than hectares of dry land.
Already major pharmaceutical companies are producing drugs developed from genetic material recovered from the high seas.
Dr Palitha Kohona is former Sri Lanka Ambassador to China and Permanent Representative of Sri Lanka to the UN and one-time Co-Chair of the UN ad hoc committee on BBNJ.
Opinion by Carolina Galvani, Monique Mikhail (washington dc)
Inter Press Service
WASHINGTON DC, May 29 (IPS) – Last week, the World Bank Group released a new report that highlights the urgent need to drastically reduce GHG emissions to address the climate crisis and calls on countries to act. However, while the World Bank’s acknowledgment of the damaging climate impacts of industrial agriculture is a crucial step forward, it’s simply not enough.
To address the climate emergency, the World Bank must walk the talk and take action on its own portfolio – which currently has billions invested in livestock production – by halting all financing for the global expansion of factory farming.
First, the climate consequences of industrial livestock are staggering. As the World Bank’s report points out, the global agrifood system accounts for approximately one-third of all global greenhouse gas emissions, and industrial livestock production accounts for the lion’s share of these.
Research has shown that livestock production alone will consume nearly half of the world’s 1.5°C emissions budget by 2030 and a staggering 80% by 2050. The World Bank’s report aptly states that “the system that feeds us is also feeding the planet’s climate crisis.”
The World Bank cannot effectively tackle the climate crisis without a significant shift in lending away from high-polluting industrial livestock and toward a more sustainable food system.
Second, the World Bank’s continued financing for industrial livestock starkly contradicts its own commitments, spanning from the Paris Agreement targets to the Sustainable Development Goals to the Bank’s biodiversity policies, and even its own mission statement.
The World Bank itself says that “the world cannot achieve the Paris Agreement targets without achieving net zero emissions in the agrifood system.” Yet, the Bank continues to finance the expansion of industrial livestock – putting the Bank’s financing at odds with its commitment to align its strategies, activities, and investments with the climate goals of the Paris Agreement.
The Bank’s financial support for industrial livestock goes against other obligations as well, including the Bank’s commitment to support the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).
A 2019 report from the German Federal Ministry for Economic Development highlights the adverse human health and environmental impacts of industrial agriculture, including livestock and feed production, and the ways in which it undermines several SDGs, including poverty eradication (1), zero hunger (2), good health (3), clean water (6), decent work (8), responsible consumption and production (12), and climate action (13).
Adding to this, despite the World Bank’s claim that it is “putting nature at the core of development efforts”, the Bank is continuing to undermine biodiversity by supporting the expansion of industrial livestock production when this sector, according to the UN Environment Programme (UNEP), is the primary threat to over 85% of the 28,000 species at risk of extinction.
Beyond global commitments, financing industrial livestock is also at odds with the World Bank’s own mission statement. World Bank President Ajay Banga took the reins at the World Bank a year ago with a mandate to help countries mitigate the climate crisis.
As part of that mandate, the World Bank updated its mission statement, stating it will work “to end extreme poverty and boost shared prosperity on a livable planet.” To achieve this mission, the World Bank must reassess its investments and immediately cease financing the expansion of industrial livestock.
Finally, like all development institutions, the World Bank has limited resources and must carefully choose the best projects to achieve its overall mission. In practice, this means that every dollar spent on industrial livestock is a dollar not invested in what the World Bank itself has acknowledged is the necessary just transition to a sustainable agrifood system. The Bank must redirect its support toward transitioning to a just and sustainable global food system.
As the Bank rightly points out in its recent report, “he world has avoided confronting agrifood system emissions for as long as it could because of the scope and complexity of the task…now is the time to put agriculture and food at the top of the mitigation agenda. If not, the world will be unable to ensure a livable planet for future generations.”
It’s past time for the Bank to heed its own warning.
The World Bank must immediately cease its support for industrial livestock — a primary driver of climate change, biodiversity loss, public health crises, and food insecurity — and direct the Bank’s resources and considerable influence toward reforming and reshaping agriculture and food systems.
Our future on a livable planet depends on it.
Carolina Galvani is the executive director of Sinergia Animal, an international animal protection organization working in the Global South to end the worst practices of industrial animal agriculture. Monique Mikhail is the Agriculture and Climate Finance Campaigns Director at Friends of the Earth U.S. Sinergia Animal and Friends of the Earth are members of the Stop Financing Factory Farming coalition.
Opinion by Achim Steiner, Carlos Manuel Rodriguez (united nations)
Inter Press Service
UNITED NATIONS, May 22 (IPS) – Small island developing states (SIDS) are scattered across the globe, dotting the Pacific Ocean, the Caribbean, the west and east coasts of Africa and the Indian Ocean.
These low-lying highly indebted countries are on the frontlines of climate change and natural resource scarcity, already facing the extremes of sea level rise, unpredictable weather events, and environmental degradation that millions more will face tomorrow.
Yet they also are pioneers, innovating and demonstrating what is possible in a shift to a nature-positive future. Emerging technologies and solutions are re-setting economic and societal priorities to value and optimize natural resources and setting forth a path of thriving resilience.
In three decades of working together supporting small islands states, these are the three critical success factors we see emerging from these trailblazing island states as the world looks to transition to a nature-positive future.
One: Nature sits at the heart of this effort.
Nature is the most effective solution to our interconnected planetary crisis and the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals. It can unlock new and quickly felt benefits of sustainable development.
Ecosystem services underpin key economic sectors in all vulnerable small island states, from fisheries to agriculture to tourism, but these same sectors have historically imposed serious environmental costs. Transitioning these sectors from ‘highly damaging’ to ‘sustainable’, in ways that are investable and profitable while benefiting communities, sits at the heart of our work together.
The new Blue and Green Islands Programme, for example, mainstreams the central role of nature and scales nature-based solutions to address environmental degradation across three target sectors—urban, food, and tourism—for nature-positive shifts in fifteen island states.
Small islands are especially well positioned to benefit from nature-positive economies, counting among them some of the most diverse and unique ecosystems in the world. For them, a nature-positive economy is important not just to stabilize the security of their natural resources and ensure resilient and thriving futures; it assures their role as irreplaceable hosts to many of the world’s migratory and endemic species that make up our global planetary safety net.
Two: Successful solutions touch all aspects of life and livelihoods.
Tackling sea level rise isn’t separate from restoring protective coastal ecosystems, which isn’t separate from rapidly expanding new opportunities in sustainable tourism and sustainable fishing. These expanding opportunities drive sustainable development, bringing jobs, economic prosperity, and resilience.
‘Whole of island’ approaches are now tackling the conservation of land, water, and ocean resources as interconnected issues. These approaches are championing decarbonization and sustainable livelihoods, increasing access to sustainable energy, increasing the ability of communities to adapt to unpredictable or extreme weather, creating jobs, improving opportunities and wellbeing, and achieving sustainable development goals.
The logic of integrated approaches is clear: our lives are deeply interconnected with our environment and our opportunities the world over. The challenge is adapting and shifting systemic norms that are out of step and out of date for the collective future we want. Whole of island issues demands ‘whole-of-society’ inclusion and coordination, across ministries and sectors, building on locally owned and existing structures and initiatives, and seeking private sector engagement and community empowerment at every level.
Today, all our projects undertaken with island states promote integration and inclusion and are designed to ensure that multiple challenges can be addressed at scale and pace simultaneously.
Successful projects demonstrate the disproportionate importance of innovation to turn our most urgent challenges into opportunities for sustainable development. Representing nearly 20% of the world’s exclusive economic zones, many of these islands are incubating new and investable nature-based solutions that can be scaled up to support successful transitions to nature-positive economic sectors and centres of excellence, both in the islands themselves and to the benefit of countries beyond.
For example, with UNDP and GEF support, Seychelles issued the world’s first ‘blue bond’; Cuba mainstreamed nature into policies and practices to reverse degradation of the Sabana-Camagüey ecosystem driven by agriculture, livestock, fisheries, and tourism; and the GEF’s Small Grants Programme supported local communities to ban single-use plastics in the Maldives.
New initiatives with innovative partners such as the Global Fund for Coral Reefs also seek to attract and de-risk private sector investment into local businesses to protect and restore important coral reef ecosystems. These initiatives offer opportunities for integration that are now inspiring similar examples across other islands.
Nothing without partnerships.
A broad and inclusive coalition of government, private sector, civil society, Indigenous Peoples, local communities, and other partners is critical to further accelerate nature-positive transformation and increase impact.
New partnerships with the private sector to identify and deploy new business models and instruments to support nature-positive outcomes are also a major part of this effort.
Small Island Developing States have in front of them an opportunity to scale and replicate their successes and make outsized contributions to the implementation of environmental conventions including the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (The Biodiversity Plan), the Paris Agreement and the UNCCD Strategic Framework, as well as progress towards their sustainable development goals.
In responding to the most pressing development needs of small island states, the nature-positive economic transitions that are emerging, sector by sector, taking an integrated, innovative and community-informed approach, offer answers to development challenges with applications far beyond their precarious and precious coastlines.
Achim Steiner is Administrator, United Nations Development Programme (UNDP); Carlos Manuel Rodriguez is CEO and Chairperson, Global Environment Facility (GEF)
During its G20 presidential year, South Africa will host a summit of heads of state and government. It will also be responsible for organising and chairing about 200 meetings of ministers and officials. These will come from the G20 members, invited countries and international organisations like the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.
The meetings will focus on issues such as the challenges facing the global economy and whether the current arrangements for global economic governance are able to respond effectively.
The G20 presidency, therefore, presents South Africa with an opportunity to promote reforms in global economic governance. But there are constraints. It will inherit an agenda from Brazil, the current G20 chair. And it will have to respond to developments in the current dynamic and complex global environment.
Danny Bradlow
The IMF/World Bank spring meetings held in April in the US suggest some achievable objectives for the G20 next year. There was a great deal of discussion about the inability of current arrangements to adequately address global challenges like climate, public health, inequality, poverty and digitalisation.
There’s not necessarily agreement on how to prioritise these challenges. And, unfortunately, the views of the rich states, which prioritise issues like carbon emissions, dominate the discussions. For example, the World Bank highlighted the fact that, in the 2023 financial year, it increased the funds loaned for climate-related purposes by more than 20%, allocating 41% of all its lending to climate.
But its own survey of its borrower countries shows that climate ranks number 11 on the list of priorities of its borrower states. Health, education, agriculture and food security, and water and sanitation rank much higher. Nevertheless, at least two gaps became evident in the discussions.
The first relates to IMF reform. The second concerns the relationship between international organisations and their member states.
South Africa should aim to fill these gaps. It should encourage the G20 to commission two studies on the scale and scope of the challenges that the international community faces, and propose some responses. Ideally, it should convince the G20 to commission these studies in 2024 so that it can begin discussing policy responses in 2025.
This kind of approach has been effective. Over the last few years, the multilateral development banks have been the subject of G20-commissioned studies. This has led to proposals designed to make them “bigger and better”.
These changes are being made in an opaque and unpredictable way, however. The IMF has not made publicly available the principles and procedures it uses when deciding what aspects of these “new” issues to take on.
It can’t accurately assess the full impacts of these issues unless it understands how communities, workers, businesses and civil society organisations will respond to the social and environmental impacts of specific policy and fiscal initiatives with macroeconomic implications. It cannot gain this information without consulting these groups.
This means it must engage more with a broader range of stakeholders than it did when it focused exclusively on more traditional macroeconomic and financial stability concerns. These new issues, therefore, raise questions about the appropriate form for the relationship between the IMF and its member states.
This is an important and creative idea. But the proposal raises difficult questions about state sovereignty and about the design of the institutions of global governance.
What’s needed
While multilateral development banks have been the subject of G20-commissioned studies, the IMF has not undergone a similar examination.
South Africa should commission a group of experts to study how the IMF should change to take on these new issues. The study should look at IMF governance, operational policies and practices, and its financial needs. The purpose would be to identify the current shortcomings in structures and functions.
Experts should also think of ways to make the IMF more responsive to the needs and priorities of all its member states and their citizens.
Second, South Africa should call for a study of how best to divide responsibility between states and the international financial institutions. This is particularly important when it comes to the environmental and social impacts of operations.
The purpose would be to understand how the roles and functions of these institutions are evolving and how this is affecting their relations with their member states. The study could propose ways to ensure that the structure and functions of institutions are both respectful of state sovereignty and appropriate for the responsibilities that the institutions are assuming.
Raising a global wealth tax for developmental purposes could be one example used in this study.
Danny Bradlow is a Professor/Senior Research Fellow, Centre for Advancement of Scholarship, University of Pretoria. In addition to his position at the University of Pretoria, he is also a Compliance Officer in the Social and Environmental Compliance Unit of the UNDP and Co-Chair of the Academic Circle on the Right to Development, which advises the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Development.
Source: The Conversation– a nonprofit, independent news organization dedicated to unlocking the knowledge of experts for the public good. The University of Pretoria provides funding as a partner of The Conversation AFRICA.
Food is distributed to Sudanese refugees in Koufron, Chad. Credit: WFP/Jacques David
Opinion by James Elder (darfur, western sudan)
Inter Press Service
DARFUR, Western Sudan, May 09 (IPS) – As dawn breaks over Darfur, my return after two decades feels heavy. Many millions are suffering once again. Twenty years ago, I was part of the humanitarian effort to make a difference. That was in the early 2000s, when celebrities and world-famous journalists would make the trek in a well-intentioned effort to focus attention on the atrocities across Darfur.
Meanwhile, a former UN staff member who worked for a decade in Sudan’s Darfur region for the African Union-United Nations mission, UNAMID, has told UN News how she had to “avoid stepping on the bodies in the streets” as she fled for her life to neighbouring Chad. March 2024.
But despite years of progress, this return is difficult; something akin to a bleak déjà vu. Indeed, in many respects, this time it is much, much worse for children and women. Sudan’s Darfur region has long been plagued by conflict, displacement, and unimaginable suffering.
But now, as Sudan is torn apart by warring parties, there are no Hollywood actors, nor coordinated, concerted international pressure from politicians and media, to tackle what is the largest displacement crisis for children on the planet.
Darfur faces one of the world’s worst man-made disasters, yet so few people are talking about. After a year of fighting, more than 4.5 million children have been displaced. That’s more children than the entire population of many countries.
My initial experience 20 years ago left an indelible mark on me. Now, two decades later, I find myself standing once again on the soil of Darfur, the landscape hardly changed, but the problems all too familiar.
There’s a frightful, familiar pattern to this current war. The fighting has been brutal. The ceasefires almost non-existent. The clashes spreading. And the atrocities many, with girls and women so frequently targeted.
“If they couldn’t carry it, they burnt it”
Talking to the people, most of whom are displaced, I hear familiar themes from 20 years ago. Fighters didn’t just battle each other but looted whatever they could find, including basics like beds, mattresses, blankets, pots and pans or clothes. They took everything and, as an elderly woman told me in the city of Genenia: “If they couldn’t carry it, they burnt it.”
As I travel across West Darfur, I see evidence of a rebuilt life demolished once again, this time for the next generation. There were schools, health clinics and water systems less than 20 years old that now, after intense fighting, have been destroyed.
Lifesaving services that protect children and families again on the brink of collapse. Frontline workers like nurses, teachers, doctors, have not been paid in months. They are running out of medicines. Safe water is sparse.
Similarly, for those who were children the last time I was in Darfur it is again a desolate place. University students and graduates, mostly young men but some women – young people who wanted a job in economics, medicine or IT – are now refugees in Chad with next to nothing. They crave the tiniest opportunity.
Dreams on hold
In the chaos of this war, the brightest minds have been forced to abandon their studies, their ambitions shattered. As 22-year-old Haida said to me in Darfur: “I had a dream – to study medical science. I was living that dream. Now I have nothing. I do not dream. Sadness is my friend.”
Her gentle voice, perfect clarity, and utter grief floor me. I can only imagine how much more attention Sudan would get if the world could meet young Sudanese women like Haida.
Or Ahmed, 20, now in Farchana, Chad: “I cannot afford to dream here.” How then to reawaken their dreams? Those in power need to negotiate a ceasefire, and ensure aid is no longer blocked – from any side.
Those in the region need to show leadership. Those in donor countries need to show compassion – and translate that into funding to address immediate needs.
I speak to Nawal, 24, from Zelinge in West Darfur, for whom the stress of war had become so much that she delivered her baby, at home, two months premature. And then, as she was giving birth, Nawal’s house was bombed. Miraculously, she and her baby survived, but when I met her, the baby was badly malnourished. I will always remember the look of this mother, as she whispered to me, head bowed, “I am a nutritionist, but look at my child’.
She was ashamed. I thought she was heroic. She had walked for a day to get her baby to a facility where the baby could receive treatment from UNICEF, but without additional resources and improved access, she will be one of the few lucky ones.
James Elder is UNICEF’s spokesperson. Follow him @1james_elder
A view of the Earth and a satellite as seen from outer space. Credit: NASA via UN News
by Thalif Deen (united nations)
Inter Press Service
UNITED NATIONS, May 07 (IPS) – When the 15-member UN Security Council failed last month to adopt its first-ever resolution on outer space—co-sponsored by the US and Japan—the Russian veto led to speculation whether this was a precursor for a future nuclear arms race in the skies above.
The vetoed resolution was expected to “affirm the obligation of all States parties to fully comply with the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, including not to place in orbit around the Earth any objects carrying nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons of mass destruction, install such weapons on celestial bodies or station such weapons in outer space in any other manner.”
Randy Rydell, Executive Advisor, Mayors for Peace, and a former Senior Political Affairs Officer at the UN Office for Disarmament Affairs (UNODA), told IPS that the Security Council’s record on disarmament issues has long suffered from the same plague that has also tormented the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva: namely the veto and the CD’s “consensus rule.”
Sadly, this vote on the outer space resolution should surprise no one, he said.
The world is facing a crisis of the “rule of law” in disarmament. Key treaties have failed to achieve universal membership, failed to be negotiated, failed to enter into force, failed to be fully incorporated into domestic laws and policies of the parties, and failed to be fully implemented, while other treaties have actually lost parties, he pointed out.
While the Outer Space Treaty will remain in force despite this unfortunate vote, Rydell argued, the specters of the existing nuclear arms race proliferating one day into space, along with unbridled competition to deploy non-nuclear space weapons, have profound implications not just for the future of disarmament but also for the peace and security of our fragile planet.
“The Charter’s norms against the threat of use of force and the obligation to resolve disputes peacefully remain the most potentially effective antidotes to the contagion unfolding before us, coupled with new steps not just “toward” but “in” disarmament”.
“I hope the General Assembly’s Summit of the Future in September will succeed in reviving a new global commitment to precisely these priorities,” declared Rydell
By a vote of 13 in favor to 1 against (Russian Federation) and 1 abstention (China), the Council rejected the draft resolution, owing to the negative vote cast by a permanent member.
Jackie Cabasso, Executive Director, Western States Legal Foundation, told IPS it is impossible, amidst the current geopolitical rivalries and fog of propaganda, to evaluate the ramifications of the Security Council’s failure to adopt this resolution—though it does underscore the dysfunction in the Security Council created by the P-5’s veto power.
“Russia and China have long been proponents of negotiations for a comprehensive treaty on the Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space, and in 2008 and 2014 submitted draft treaty texts to the moribund Conference on Disarmament,” she said.
The United States, under both the Bush and Obama administrations, rejected those drafts out of hand, said Cabasso, whose California-based WSLF is a non-profit public interest organization that seeks to abolish nuclear weapons as an essential step in securing a more just and environmentally sustainable world.
A week after its April 24 veto, Russia submitted a new draft resolution to the U.N. Security Council that goes farther than the U.S.-Japan proposal, calling not only for efforts to stop weapons from being deployed in outer space “for all time,” but for preventing “the threat or use of force in outer space.”
The resolution reportedly states this should include bans on deploying weapons “from space against Earth, and from Earth against objects in outer space.” By definition, this would include anti-satellite weapons.
With new nuclear arms races underway here on earth, with the erosion and dismantling of the Cold War nuclear arms control architecture, and with the dangers of wars among nuclear armed states growing to perhaps an all-time high, it certainly remains true, as recognized by the UN General Assembly in 1981, that “the extension of the arms race into outer space a real possibility.”
“We are in a global emergency and every effort must be made to lower the temperature and create openings for diplomatic dialogue among the nuclear-armed states. To this end, the U.S. and its allies should call Russia’s bluff (if that’s what they think it is) and welcome its proposed new resolution in the Security Council,” declared Cabasso.
Speaking after the vote, the representative of the United States said that this is not the first time the Russian Federation has undermined the global non-proliferation regime, according to a report in UN News. “It has defended—and even enabled—dangerous proliferators.”
Moreover, with its abstention, the US said, China showed that it would rather “defend Russia as its junior partner” than safeguard the global non-proliferation regime, she added.
“There should be no doubt that placing a nuclear weapon into orbit would be unprecedented, unacceptable, and deeply dangerous.”
The US said Japan had gone to great lengths to forge consensus, with 65 cross-regional co-sponsors who joined in support.
Japan’s representative said he deeply regretted the Russian Federation’s decision to use the veto to break the adoption of “this historic draft resolution.”
Notwithstanding the support of 65 countries that co-sponsored the document, one permanent member decided to “silence the critical message we wanted to send to the world,” he stressed, noting that the draft resolution would have been a practical contribution to the promotion of peaceful use and the exploration of outer space.
The representative of the Russian Federation, noting that the Council is again involved in “a dirty spectacle prepared by the US and Japan, said, “This is a cynical ploy. We are being tricked.”
Recalling that the ban on placing weapons of mass destruction in outer space is already enshrined in the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, he said that Washington, D.C., Japan, and their allies are “cherry-picking” weapons of mass destruction out of all other weapons, trying to “camouflage their lack of interest” in outer space being free from any kinds of weapons.
The addition to the operative paragraph, proposed by the Russian Federation and China, does not delete from the draft resolution a call not to develop weapons of mass destruction and not to place them in outer space, he emphasized.
Meanwhile, outlining the treaty’s history, Cabasso said that in Article IV of the Outer Space Treaty, adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1967, States Parties agreed “not to place in orbit around the earth any objects carrying nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons of mass destruction, install such weapons on celestial bodies, or station such weapons in outer space in any other manner.”
Yet, according to the UN Yearbook, by 1981, member states had expressed concern in the General Assembly that “rapid advances in science and technology had made the extension of the arms race into outer space a real possibility, and that new kinds of weapons were still being developed despite the existence of international agreements.”
In his May 1 testimony to the House Armed Services subcommittee, John Plumb, the first Assistant Secretary of Defense for Space Policy, claimed that “Russia is developing and—if we are unable to convince them otherwise—to ultimately fly a nuclear weapon in space which will be an indiscriminate weapon” that would not distinguish among military, civilian, or commercial satellites.
In February, President Vladimir Putin declared that Russia has no intention of deploying nuclear weapons in space. It is troubling, therefore, that on April 24, Russia vetoed the first-ever Security Council resolution on an arms race in outer space, said Cabasso.
The resolution, introduced by the United States and Japan, would have affirmed the obligation of all States Parties to fully comply with the Outer Space Treaty, including its provisions to not deploy nuclear or any other kind of weapon of mass destruction in space. China abstained.
Before the resolution was put to a vote, Russia and China had proposed an amendment that would have broadened the call on all countries—beyond banning nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons—to “prevent for all time the placement of weapons in outer space and the threat of use of force in outer space.” The amendment was defeated, she said.
Note: This article is brought to you by IPS Noram, in collaboration with INPS Japan and Soka Gakkai International, in consultative status with UN ECOSOC.
