ReportWire

Tag: IPS UN: Inside the Glasshouse

  • I Couldnt Remain Silent: Son Fights for Uyghur Journalists Release from Chinese Prison

    I Couldnt Remain Silent: Son Fights for Uyghur Journalists Release from Chinese Prison

    Qurban Mamut (left) and Bahram Sintash (second from left) with their family in Xinjiang, China in 1989. Credit: Courtesy of Bahram Sintash
    • Opinion by Iris Hsu (taipei, taiwan)
    • Inter Press Service

    Sintash later learned that his father had been swept up in China’s 2017 crackdown on Uyghurs and other mostly Muslim ethnic groups. China has said its policies in Xinjiang, which involve reeducation camps, forced sterilization, and family separations, are in the name of counter-terrorism, but 51 United Nations member countries have accused the government of “crimes against humanity.”

    Mamut, as a prominent intellectual who edited the state-owned Xinjiang Civilization and Tepakkur magazines, was sentenced to 15 years for “political crimes,” according to news reports. According to Sintash, his father’s decades of journalism drew the attention of the Chinese government in its efforts to quash the Uyghur cultural industry.

    After initially fearing that speaking out could harm his 74-year-old father’s case, Sintash decided to go public about the detention in 2018; in 2020, he joined the U.S. Congress-funded Radio Free Asia (RFA) in Washington, D.C. to be a “voice of voice-less Uyghurs.”

    The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) spoke with Sintash about his father’s love of journalism, restrictions on the press in Xinjiang, and what he knows of Mamut’s detention.

    This interview has been edited for length and clarity. The Chinese foreign ministry did not reply to CPJ’s email requesting comment on Mamut’s arrest and sentencing.

    What can you tell us about your father’s detention?

    I initially thought my father was detained in 2018, but later learned it was actually in late 2017. Communication with my family in Urumqi has been severed since then, with China cutting off our ability to talk in late 2017 and early 2018. My mother told me, “We can no longer talk to you,” leaving me without any information about my father.

    In September of the following year, I sought to find out what had happened to him. Eventually, one of my neighbors who also lives overseas informed me that my father had been taken away from our neighborhood. This neighbor had heard the news from their family who witnessed my father being taken from his home. I was shocked by this revelation.

    At the same time, I was considering what actions to take. I felt that raising my voice was the right decision, but I was extremely cautious. I was unsure of the exact steps to take or the words to use, as anything I said could potentially endanger my father further, given China’s unpredictable actions.

    What was the media environment like in Xinjiang before your father’s arrest?

    In 2016, a well-known writer, Yalqun Rozi, was detained and later sentenced to 15 years , a fate similar to that of my father. My father visited the United States in January 2017 and stayed for a month, during which time he learned about the detention of Yalqun, a close friend. Yalqun had not been sentenced at that point but was under arrest, likely due to his publication of sensitive topics.

    Yalqun had written extensively on various subjects, including Uyghur welfare, and had contributed many essays to my father’s journal, Xinjiang Civilization. Their past collaboration made my father concerned that Yalqun’s arrest might not be an isolated case.

    Yalqun’s detention marked the beginning of a broader crackdown on Uyghur intellectuals. China targeted Uyghur intellectuals first in order to more successfully repress Uyghur identity. They began by arresting individuals and then expanded their investigation to a larger network of Uyghurs.

    My father understood that this could happen, but we were uncertain about China’s next steps. After 2017, under Xi Jinping’s leadership, the situation became increasingly dire, reflecting the tense atmosphere of that time.

    Can you tell us about Xinjiang Civilization, the magazine your father edited from 1985 until 2017?

    The content in the magazine mainly focuses on culture, history, current affairs, the identity of Uyghurs, examining the shortcomings of the Uyghur nation and society, and opinion pieces. This was the main content before 2017, primarily when my dad was the sole editor-in-chief.

    Interestingly, all the names of the journal’s editorial board members were removed in the third issue of 2017 just half a month before the mass detentions began in 2017. The content of the journal dramatically changed in its last publication. It now became filled with red Communist propaganda.

    Many of the members on the board were subsequently taken to re-education camps, including my dad. At least two of other members, Abduqadir Jalalidin and Arslan Abdulla, as well as my dad were sentenced to long prison terms.

    Before the magazine’s third issue in 2017, its content mainly focused on Uyghur culture and literary works. However, after that issue, it primarily began publishing political content, which mostly revolves around studying Xi Jinping’s ideology.

    The next editor even wrote an open letter titled “Protecting the security of the ideological sphere is my priority,” in which he promised not to publish anything promoting “separatism,” “terrorism,” or “two-faced” behavior. The letter followed two articles written by Uyghur officials calling the readers to “protect the unity of the nations with hearts and protect the homeland with loyalty.”

    What was your father’s relationship to his journalistic work?

    My father was the sole editor; there were no secondary editors. However, he had two assistants who could be considered as secondary editors, but their main role was typing and assisting with computer-related tasks. My father worked tirelessly, often putting in 16-hour days. He would work at the office, come home for a quick meal, and then continue working late into the night, spending countless hours at his desk.

    Your father was quite well known for his journalism. How was he seen in the Uyghur community?

    My father was an exceptional teacher, not through writing himself, but by curating and compiling works from other writers. He focused on selecting the right topics, aiming to present the truth without imposing his own opinions on the journal.

    He steered clear of politics, especially avoiding any praise of the Chinese Communist Party or spreading its propaganda, which some writers and editors did to secure better positions and ensure their safety. My father, however, sought out authentic voices who could present genuine work, which is why the journal promoted many unknown writers who eventually became famous. The platform allowed them to express the truth.

    While my father didn’t publicly express his own views, he was frequently interviewed on TV talk shows due to his extensive knowledge of Uyghur culture. These appearances contributed to his fame. During the 1990s and 2000s, there was a period when Uyghurs enjoyed a degree of freedom to discuss their identity, language, and other aspects of their culture — a stark contrast to the current situation.

    Did your father face retribution for his journalism before his imprisonment?

    My father was called in for questioning in 2004, although he didn’t face persecution or punishment. This was related to an opinion piece published in his journal about the Uyghur language. At that time, Xinjiang authorities were starting to phase out the Uyghur language from schools and universities, replacing it with Chinese in subjects like mathematics and other majors.

    The writer of the piece was arrested, and my father was questioned by the security bureau and China’s intelligence department. To avoid worrying us, my father never shared the full details of what happened.

    You believe your father was arrested for his journalism. Why?

    After his retirement in 2011 , my father didn’t stop working. He continued to serve on the editorial board of Xinjiang Civilization, and became the head editor of a newly established magazine called Tepakkur. The magazine, published by the state-run Xinjiang Juvenile Publishing House, or Chiso, gained popularity due to my father’s reputation. “Tepakkur” means “think.”

    My father, invited to be the editor-in-chief, established this magazine to have more freedom and flexibility in selecting topics.It was not available digitally, only in print, and this was just before the mass arrests began around 2014-2015. As a result, I don’t have a copy and haven’t read the articles, but the journal was well-regarded by its readers.

    Can you tell us about your work at RFA? Has your father’s imprisonment made you rethink your personal safety, especially while covering Xinjiang?

    I joined RFA because my fear diminished as I became more vocal in advocating for other Uyghurs. I couldn’t remain silent; I had to speak the truth. My mindset became open, ready to face any challenge. Many Uyghurs, concerned for their safety and their families’, avoid RFA and don’t pursue journalism there. But for me, there were no limits. I saw RFA as the only true voice for Uyghurs worldwide, so I joined to work for my people.

    As for my efforts to free my father, it’s been an emotionally challenging task. I’ve been in constant communication with organizations, governments, NGOs, and even the United Nations, explaining my father’s situation and speaking to the media. My work extends beyond my father to all Uyghurs and our culture, which I learned to preserve from my father.

    Iris Hsu is CPJ’s China representative. Prior to joining CPJ, Hsu interned at Human Rights Watch, Center for Arms Control and Nonproliferation, and the Atlantic Council. Hsu obtained her master’s degree in international affairs from American University. She speaks Mandarin and French and lives in Taipei.

    IPS UN Bureau


    Follow IPS News UN Bureau on Instagram

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

    Global Issues

    Source link

  • Will a Two-State Solution include Palestine as a UN Member State?

    Will a Two-State Solution include Palestine as a UN Member State?

    Robert A. Wood, deputy permanent representative of the United States to the United Nations, vetoes Palestine’s U.N. membership during the Security Council meeting on April 18, 2024. Credit: Manuel Elías/United Nations
    • by Thalif Deen (united nations)
    • Inter Press Service

    But one lingering question remains: will the two-state solution include– or exclude– Palestine as a full-fledged UN member state?

    Sarah Leah Whitson, Executive Director of the Washington-based Democracy for the Arab World Now (DAWN), told IPS: “That the US has once again resorted to its well-worn veto to block Palestine’s UN membership is all you need to know about why its pretend commitment to a ’two-state solution’ is nothing but empty rhetoric”.

    The US has been Israel’s number one weapons supplier in ensuring that a Palestinian state never emerges, both by blocking meaningful action from the international community and providing Israel with a bottomless arsenal of weapons with which to terrorize Palestinians, she pointed out.

    Meanwhile, the denial of UN membership to Palestine also underlines the continued abuse of veto powers not only by the US but also China and Russia who use it as a weapon to protect their political and military allies worldwide.

    The beneficiaries mostly include Israel, North Korea, Syria and Myanmar.

    Since 1992, according to Wikipedia, Russia has been the most frequent user of the veto, followed by the United States and China.

    As of March 2024, Russia/USSR has used its veto 128 times, the US 85 times, the UK 29 times, China 19 times, and France 16 times. On 26 April 2022, the General Assembly adopted a resolution mandating a debate when a veto is cast in the Security Council.

    Stephen Zunes, professor of Politics and chair of Middle Eastern Studies at the University of San Francisco and who has written extensively on the politics of the Security Council, told IPS the US has vetoed no less than 45 resolutions critical of Israel, “thereby rendering the Security Council effectively impotent”.

    Norman Solomon, Executive Director, Institute for Public Accuracy and National Director, RootsAction.org told IPS the U.S. solo veto again underscored its chosen isolation from world opinion and governmental lineup about Israel and the human rights of Palestinian people.

    Washington’s position is morally untenable, based squarely on “might makes right” geopolitics, he said.

    Even inside the United States, the political tide is shifting away from reflexive support for Israel, but — rhetoric aside — the White House remains locked into support for the Israeli system of apartheid and occupation, while a majority of Congress remains willing to fund Israel’s genocidal war on people in Gaza, Solomon pointed out.

    “The U.S. government doesn’t want Palestine to have a seat at the U.N. table because the U.S. government actually doesn’t recognize that such an entity as “Palestine” even exists. Nor do top policymakers in the U.S. executive and legislative branches truly proceed as though Palestinian people have legitimate claims on Palestine”.

    The tacit U.S. approach, he said, is that history in the region begins whenever convenient for the U.S.-Israeli alliance, whether in 1948 or 1967 or on Oct. 7, 2023.

    There are many flaws in the stances and pretensions of members of the Security Council, whether permanent or rotating. The governments they represent vary from having significant elements of democracy to operating as de facto dictatorships.

    “Yet, to a notable degree and to a wide extent, on matters involving Israel and Palestinians, the votes cast at the U.N. in both the Security Council and the General Assembly reflect as close to a consensus of governments and peoples as exists in the world today”.

    Israel is an apartheid state, its occupation of territories since 1967 is absolutely illegitimate, and its war on the people living and dying in Gaza is mass murder, said Solomon, author of “War Made Invisible: How America Hides the Human Toll of Its Military Machine”

    According to an April 22 report on Cable News Network (CNN), Israel’s Foreign Ministry will summon ambassadors from several countries later this week to express its displeasure for their support for Palestinian membership at the UN, Israeli Foreign Minister Israel Katz was quoted as saying.

    “The diplomatic push involves countries that have voted in favor of Palestinian membership in the UN and have ambassadors stationed in Israel, including France, Ecuador, Japan, Malta, South Korea, Slovenia, China and Russia”.

    Algeria, Sierra Leone, Guyana and Mozambique — which also supported the proposal — do not have embassies in Israel, CNN said.

    In a statement last week, the Washington, D.C., based Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) said: “The Biden administration should be ashamed and embarrassed after 12 nations rejected its plea to vote against membership for the State of Palestine, forcing the United States to stand alone with another unjust veto.

    “For decades, the UN Security Council has failed to prevent unjust wars and genocide around the world. The world should no longer accept a flawed system in which five nations can exercise veto power over the affairs of more than eight billion people, including nearly two billion Muslims who are not represented among the five permanent members.” CAIR said.

    “Nations and people of the world must push for the UN Security Council to be either radically reformed or abolished altogether in the years ahead.”

    According to the UN, States are admitted to UN membership by a decision of the 193-member General Assembly upon the recommendation of the 15-member Security Council.

    The resolution needs a two-thirds majority (currently 128 votes) in the General Assembly– and no vetoes in the Security Council. The State of Palestine was accepted as “a non-member observer state” of the UN General Assembly in November 2012.

    IPS UN Bureau Report


    Follow IPS News UN Bureau on Instagram

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

    Global Issues

    Source link

  • Who Should be the Next UN Leader? – PART 4

    Who Should be the Next UN Leader? – PART 4

    • Opinion by Felix Dodds, Chris Spence (apex, north carolina / dublin, ireland)
    • Inter Press Service
    • With current UN Secretary-General António Guterres set to step down in 2026, who is in the running to replace him? In this seven-part series, Felix Dodds and Chris Spence reveal who might be in the running and assess their chances.

      The potential candidates include Amina J. Mohammed (Nigeria), Mia Motley (Barbados), Alicia Barcena (Mexico), Maria Fernanda Espinosa (Ecuador), Rebeca Grynspan (Costa Rica) and Michelle Bachelet (Chile). These are names that have come up in conversations with UN insiders and other experts. All six would offer skills and experiences we believe would be valuable in these fast-paced, uncertain times.

    The UN General Assembly in session.

    Her time in charge of the General Assembly was eventful. During her year as its leader, Espinosa pushed hard for progress on women’s empowerment and gender equality, particularly in terms of boosting women’s political participation. On several occasions she gathered women heads of state and government, as well as other female leaders, for events aimed at advancing this agenda.

    She also focused on the rights of refugees, presiding over the adoption of the Global Compact on Refugees, as well as a Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration. Furthermore, she launched an International Year of Indigenous Languages and helped advance the international conversation on single-use plastics, supporting efforts to eliminate their use at UN headquarters in New York and Geneva.

    Additionally, she used her tenure to urge greater progress on nuclear disarmament and on diseases like tuberculosis.

    But her career began thousands of miles from New York. Her early focus was in the Amazon, working alongside indigenous communities in her native Ecuador. Later, she represented Ecuador as its Ambassador to the UN. She also served twice as her country’s Minister of Foreign Affairs and in several other ministerial positions, including as Minister of Defense and, earlier, as Minister of Natural and Cultural Heritage.

    Prior to holding these senior government positions, Espinosa was an associate professor and researcher at the Latin American Faculty of Social Sciences. She also served as an advisor on biodiversity, climate change, and indigenous peoples’ policies. Later, she became regional director for South America for the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), a position she held from 2005-2007.

    Espinosa’s track record on climate change is also noteworthy, as she has served since 2009 as a key negotiator in several climate conferences, including COP21 in 2015, where the Paris Agreement was signed.

    Her early academic life was as broad and eclectic as her later professional career, with degrees in social science, Amazonic studies, anthropology, political science, and linguistics. She even won a national prize in poetry.

    Assessing Espinosa’s Prospects

    Could Maria Fernanda Espinosa’s wide-ranging experiences qualify her to be the next UN Secretary-General? Here is our assessment of her advantages and disadvantages, should she put her name forward.

    Advantages

    • Right Region: Like several of our other potential candidates, Espinosa’s Ecuadorian background and an apparent preference for a leader from Latin America and the Caribbean could work in her favor.
    • UN Experience: Espinosa has been both the President of the UN General Assembly, where she emerged with her reputation intact, and a UN Ambassador in New York. She has led the Group of 77 developing nations in UN negotiations and been a lead negotiator in key climate talks. These UN experiences should surely burnish her credentials.
    • Connections: Espinosa developed strong networks during her time leading the Group of 77 and as President of the UN General Assembly. She has strong connections among leading women’s groups and indigenous peoples. Could this robust set of networks among senior politicians and various important stakeholders help her become Secretary-General?
    • A Woman Leader: As noted previously, the UN has never had a female leader during its 80-year history. It is high time this changed. Espinosa would be another capable candidate. In addition, she has a clear track record promoting women’s leadership at the United Nations.

      She is current Executive Director of the Group of Women Leaders for Change Inclusion, hosting a successful summit in Madrid early in 2024 that drew leaders from the UN system, as well as high-profile names such as Hilary Clinton.

    Disadvantages

    • Should Only Prime Ministers Apply? The current Secretary-General, António Guterres, was previously Portugal’s Prime Minister. While earlier UN leaders did not head-up governments, it is an open question as to whether Guterres’ appointment will set a new precedent or expectation for future UN leaders. If it does, Espinosa and other candidates who cannot boast of being a former president or prime minister may have their work cut out. That said, historically the UN Secretary-General’s role often attracted former foreign ministers to apply. If that earlier precedent is restored, Espinosa’s time as Ecuador’s foreign minister (twice) could be an advantage.
    • An ‘Outside’ Insider? Like Alicia Bárcena and some other possible candidates, Espinosa can claim both outside experience as a government minister, and ‘inside’ UN expertise heading up the UN General Assembly and playing a leading role at major UN negotiations. However, it is worth noting that Espinosa has never actually worked within the UN as a staff member; most of her UN experience was gained while she was with the Ecuadorian government. This makes it substantively different. Espinosa will likely have less true inside working knowledge than some other possible candidates of how the UN operates internally, possibly meaning her learning curve would be steeper.
    • Name Recognition: While those in UN climate circles and at New York headquarters will know her, Espinosa is not a household name. Could this tell against her?

    Prof. Felix Dodds and Chris Spence have participated in United Nations conferences and negotiations since the 1990s. They co-edited Heroes of Environmental Diplomacy: Profiles in Courage (Routledge, 2022), which examines the roles of individuals in inspiring change.

    Previous parts:

    https://www.ipsnews.net/2024/04/next-un-leaderpart-1/
    https://www.ipsnews.net/2024/04/next-un-leaderpart-2/
    https://www.ipsnews.net/2024/04/next-un-leaderpart-3/

    IPS UN Bureau

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

    Global Issues

    Source link

  • In the Shadows of the Wars in Ukraine & Gaza, Iran and Russia are Growing Ever Closer

    In the Shadows of the Wars in Ukraine & Gaza, Iran and Russia are Growing Ever Closer

    • Opinion by Hamidreza Azizi (berlin, germany)
    • Inter Press Service

    The content of the statement, coupled with its context – an Iranian-Russian summit in Moscow – succinctly summarises how the war in Gaza has shifted Iran’s perspective toward Russia as a steadfast partner in its stance against Israel and on the war, underpinned by shared viewpoints on major international topics.

    Though Putin did not explicitly endorse Raisi’s comments, he did not disappoint his visitor either, pointing out the mutual comprehension between the two states on regional issues, including the Gaza conflict, as one of the topics of bilateral negotiations.

    A shared vision on Gaza

    The Raisi-Putin meeting, marking the most significant diplomatic engagement between Iran and Russia concerning Gaza since the start of the war, was not an isolated event. Since shortly after the war’s outset, the issue has consistently featured in phone discussions and in-person meetings among the two countries’ officials.

    Beyond this bilateral framework, the shared stance on the Gaza issue has also been articulated in multilateral settings where both Iran and Russia are present. The most notable instance was the trilateral ‘Astana format’ meeting between Iran, Russia and Turkey.

    While the forum is primarily focused on Syria, the three parties emphasised the significance of preventing the expansion of the armed confrontation in Gaza and the involvement of other regional states in the conflict.

    They also ‘expressed deep concern over the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza and stressed the need to end Israeli brutal onslaught against the Palestinians and send humanitarian aid to Gaza’.

    The growing convergence between Iran and Russia on the Gaza issue is also evident in the official narratives promoted by each country separately; a convergence that has been apparent since the beginning of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and Iran’s support for it, attributing international problems and crises to the detrimental role of the West, notably the United States.

    Iran and Russia have labelled Western responses to the Gaza conflict as hypocritical, juxtaposing them with Western actions in other global conflicts, especially in Ukraine. This narrative aims to spotlight perceived inconsistencies and biases in Western foreign policies.

    Both governments also advocate for regional solutions to regional problems, contesting Western interventions in the Middle East.

    Indeed, the alignment in narratives and perceptions between Iran and Russia transcends the immediate context of the war in Gaza. It is part of a broader strategy aimed at transforming the global order into a more multipolar structure, wherein Western dominance is contested and alternative power centres, such as Iran and Russia, assume a more pronounced role.

    Concurrently, the negative impact of Western influence is blamed for the inefficacy of international institutions, including the United Nations, in ending the war in Gaza. This aspect also appears to have broader implications.

    The Astana talks on Syria demonstrate the commitment of Iran and Russia, along with Turkey, which has equally criticised the Western response to the Gaza war, to establishing alternative platforms for conflict resolution and international cooperation.

    In essence, the focus on Gaza in the final statement of the Astana meeting signifies that Iran, Russia and Turkey intend to extend their trilateral cooperation in Syria, which was partly also replicated in the South Caucasus after the latest war between Azerbaijan and Armenia (within the framework known as 3+3), to a wider Middle Eastern context.

    Following Syria and the South Caucasus, Gaza may also emerge as a venue for the trilateral cooperation of Tehran, Moscow and Ankara – despite differences in positions – to manifest.

    In any case, as many analysts anticipated from the onset of the Gaza war, Russia has sought to leverage the conflict as an opportunity to extend its outreach to the Global South, particularly to Muslim countries critical of Israel’s actions in Gaza. In this context, Russia’s relations with the Islamic Republic have been notably influenced.

    On the one hand, the Islamic Republic, as a principal supporter of Hamas and Israel’s foremost adversary, seizes any opportunity to broaden international support for its ally and to weaken Israel’s position.

    On the other hand, for the leaders of the Islamic Republic, Russia’s stance is an affirmation that their decision to back Moscow in the Ukraine conflict was judicious.

    A nuclear-armed Iran?

    The spillover of the Gaza war into other areas in the Middle East and the engagement of Iran’s proxies and non-state allies in the ‘axis of resistance’, from the Houthis in Yemen to Iraqi militias, has introduced an additional layer to the already complex Iran-West dynamics.

    Western powers, particularly the United States and Britain, increasingly attribute responsibility to Iran for the Houthi attacks in the Red Sea and the operations of Shiite militias in Iraq and Syria. Indeed, following the expansion of Iran’s nuclear programme, Tehran’s support for Moscow in the Ukraine war and the suppression of the 2022 popular protests in Iran, the Gaza war has now added a new problem to Iran’s relations with the West.

    At the same time, these developments have dimmed the prospects for reviving the Iran nuclear deal or achieving a new agreement between Iran and the US. Under these circumstances, Iran is expected to gravitate more toward its Eastern partners, namely Russia and China.

    The war in Gaza has also laid bare the limitations of Iran’s asymmetric warfare strategy utilising proxies and non-state partners. American strikes in Yemen on one side and in Iraq and Syria on the other, although not having reinstated deterrence as Washington had hoped, have revealed that Iran’s network of non-state allies and proxies is quite vulnerable.

    Meanwhile, the continuation of Israeli military operations against Hamas has significantly impaired the military capabilities of this Palestinian militia. Some analysts speculate that this might incline Iran toward developing nuclear weapons as the ultimate deterrent.

    An alternative, or perhaps complementary, strategy could be forming a military alliance with friendly powers like Russia and China. Secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council Ali-Akbar Ahmadian’s visit to Moscow and the heightened emphasis from both sides on finalising a long-term strategic cooperation agreement should be viewed in this context.

    Concurrently, reports have emerged suggesting that Iran has finally decided to provide Russia with ballistic missiles. Russia has also acquired a new model of Iranian drones, Shahed 238. All these indications show that both sides, driven by their practical needs as well as long-term strategic outlooks, are increasingly inclined to forge a robust military partnership.

    In fact, even if Iran decides to pursue nuclear weapons, it needs to secure Russia’s support. Thus, fostering relations with Russia remains crucial. Currently, there’s no concrete evidence suggesting that Russia would endorse a nuclear-armed Iran. However, it’s not entirely implausible, depending on future Russia-West relations.

    The above factors have reinforced Iran’s reliance on Russia as a strategic partner. Concurrently, it appears that Russia-Israel relations are approaching a point of no return. Indeed, it remains vital for Russia that Israel not support Ukraine.

    But at least in the short term, Israel must prioritise its own security needs amid the war in Gaza and appears incapable of providing substantial security assistance abroad.

    Furthermore, Russia is now relatively confident in its achievements in Ukraine. However, this does not imply that Russia desires a complete overhaul of its relations with Israel; rather, it simply perceives less necessity for Israel and believes it now has the upper hand in this relationship.

    Yet, factors exist that could challenge the transformation of the Iran-Russia partnership into a steadfast alliance. Most notably, Russia’s ambition to cultivate relations with the Arab states of the Persian Gulf to attract investment and for diplomatic manoeuvring is significant enough that Russia was prepared to endorse the UAE’s stance on three islands in the Persian Gulf disputed between Iran and the UAE, eliciting unprecedented criticism of Moscow in Iran, even among top officials.

    Ultimately, Russia was compelled to reaffirm its commitment to Iran’s territorial integrity. Currently, the improvement in Tehran’s relations with Arab capitals, partly facilitated by the Gaza war, may simplify Russia’s task of balancing its relations with both sides of the Persian Gulf. However, there’s no assurance that this approach will remain viable in the long term.

    Dr. Hamidreza Azizi is a Visiting Fellow in the Africa and Middle East Division at the German Institute for International and Security Affairs (SWP) in Berlin.

    Source: International Politics and Society (IPS)-Journal published by the International Political Analysis Unit of the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, Hiroshimastrasse 28, D-10785 Berlin

    IPS UN Bureau


    Follow IPS News UN Bureau on Instagram

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

    Global Issues

    Source link

  • Will Israel Defy Another Security Council Resolution?

    Will Israel Defy Another Security Council Resolution?

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

    Clearly, Israel has had a longstanding notoriety for flouting UNSC resolutions —and still never having to pay a price for such violations—primarily because of the unyielding support of the United States.

    Stephen Zunes, Professor of Politics, University of San Francisco, who has written extensively and authoritatively on the politics of the Security Council, told IPS: “By my count, Israel has initially stood in violation of as many as 40 UN Security Council resolutions for at least a decade following their passage, though they eventually came into compliance with about a dozen of those. They remain in violation of the others”.

    Successive U.S. administrations, including the Biden administration, have made clear they would veto any UN Security Council resolution that would impose sanctions or any other kind of pressure to force Israel into compliance, he said.

    While it is certainly a positive development that the Biden administration did not veto Monday’s Security Council resolution calling for a ceasefire as it has previously, the United States again demonstrated its isolation in the international community by being the only country to not vote in favor.

    The Biden administration threatened to veto the original draft resolution calling for a permanent ceasefire, only agreeing to not cast a veto in return for dropping the word “permanent.”

    White House spokesperson John Kirby said the United States did not vote in favor because the resolution did not condemn Hamas, despite the fact that it did not condemn Israel either.

    The wording of the various clauses which the Biden administration also apparently demanded are revealing: While it “demands” that Hamas release the hostages, the United States made sure that the resolution only “emphasizes the urgent need” to get desperately-needed aid to Palestinians and that it did not mention that it is Israel that is preventing it, said Dr Zunes, currently Torgny Segerstedt Visiting Research Professor, at the Department of Sociology and Work Science, University of Gothenburg, Sweden.

    At the same time, even though the ceasefire resolution, if honored, would only stop the fighting for two weeks, it is significant that the United States allowed for even a temporary ceasefire resolution to pass without conditioning it on the release of Israeli hostages, he noted.

    “This is no doubt a reflection of the growing domestic and international pressure the Biden administration has been facing over its support for Israel’s horrific war on the people of Gaza.

    Whatever the wording of the resolution, however, it is unlikely that Israel will abide by it and the United States would certainly veto any attempt by the United Nations to enforce it,” he declared.

    Oxfam’s UN Representative and Head of New York Office Brenda Mofya said: “We welcome the Security Council’s adoption of a ceasefire resolution so Palestinians in Gaza can have much-needed respite from the relentless and devastating Israeli violence and critical aid can reach them”.

    However, this resolution, while a step in the right direction, falls short of the permanent ceasefire which is truly required and comes too late for the over 32,000 Palestinians in Gaza that have been killed, and thousands more unaccounted for, while the Security Council wrung its hands over semantics, she argued.

    “For nearly six months, the rest of the international community has repeatedly called for a permanent ceasefire, the release of all hostages, and the provision of unrestricted aid into Gaza. It is long overdue for UN Security Council Member States to finally heed these calls with the moral leadership that is rightfully expected of them and to stop the killing and suffering in Gaza.

    “Now this resolution has passed, it is imperative for Member States to fulfil their obligations to ensure that it is implemented so that Palestinians never endure violence such as this again. This includes immediately halting the transfer of weapons, parts, and ammunition to Israel and Palestinian armed groups,” she said.

    “A mere two-week pause is not enough. This initial cessation in violence must lead to a permanent ceasefire that lasts and a sustainable peace for Palestinians and Israelis alike, so people in Gaza can mourn their loved ones and begin the long road of recovery and reconstruction,” declared Mofya.

    Louis Charbonneau, UN director at Human Rights Watch said Israel needs to immediately respond to the UN Security Council resolution by facilitating the delivery of humanitarian aid, ending its starvation of Gaza’s population, and halting unlawful attacks.

    Palestinian armed groups should immediately release all civilians held hostage. The US and other countries should use their leverage to end atrocities by suspending arms transfers to Israel, said Charbonneau.

    In a statement issued on March 25, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken said the US abstention on the Security Council resolution comes on the heels of the Russian and Chinese veto “of our comprehensive draft resolution in the Council, reaffirms the U.S. position that a ceasefire of any duration come as part of an agreement to release hostages in Gaza”.

    “While we do not agree with all provisions included in this text, adjustments made by the resolution’s sponsors over recent days are consistent with our principled position that any ceasefire text must be paired with text on the release of the hostages”, he said.

    This resolution further explicitly recognizes the painstaking, non-stop negotiations being conducted by the Governments of Egypt, Israel, Qatar, and the United States to achieve such a release in the context of a ceasefire, which would also create space to surge more lifesaving humanitarian assistance for Palestinian civilians, and to build something more enduring.

    “Because the final text does not have key language we view as essential, notably a condemnation of Hamas, we could not support it. This failure to condemn Hamas is particularly difficult to understand coming days after the world once again witnessed the horrific acts terrorist groups commit,” Blinken said.

    “We reiterate the need to accelerate and sustain the provision of humanitarian assistance through all available routes – land, sea, and air. We continue to discuss with partners a pathway to the establishment of a Palestinian state with real security guarantees for Israel to establish long-term peace and security,” he declared.

    Nihal Awad, National Executive Director of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), said the Biden administration’s long overdue decision to permit the passage of a Security Council resolution calling for a ceasefire “will only be impactful if our government takes concrete steps to support it.”

    The far-right Netanyahu government is already flouting the resolution and promising to continue its genocide in Gaza. The Biden administration should respond by ending the transfer of any new weapons to the Israeli government and taking steps to pursue a just, lasting peace, he said.

    IPS UN Bureau Report


    Follow IPS News UN Bureau on Instagram

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

    Global Issues

    Source link

  • Reimagining Cooperation in a Polarized World in the Context of Zimbabwe?

    Reimagining Cooperation in a Polarized World in the Context of Zimbabwe?

    • Opinion by Ayodele Odusola (harare, zimbabwe)
    • Inter Press Service

    Perhaps for citizens of many countries, it is easy to see why this would be the case. In our relentlessly interconnected world, citizens bear witness to dangerous geopolitical quagmires; unpredictable climate shocks threaten everyday livelihoods; and the world still struggles with the human consequences of insecurity and inequality in nearly every form.

    It is because of these inequalities – at least – that every Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) country has rebounded to recover to its pre-2019 Human Development Index trend – yet only about half of the world’s Least Developed Countries have done so.

    That is, while wealthier countries recover, much of rest of the world has lost – and remains below – the encouraging trajectory countries had once experienced before 2019.

    Can I surprise the reader by saying not all is doom and gloom?

    Twenty five (25) of the African countries recovered to their pre-COVID-19 trend.

    Further, for the first time since the COVID-19 pandemic, the Human Development Index for Zimbabwe rose from 0.549 in 2021 to 0.550 in 2022 (the closer this number stands to 1.0, the higher the level of human capability and individual choice). This result puts Zimbabwe in Medium Human Development category.

    Still, although Zimbabwe increased in HDI value – and was ranked 159 out of 193 countries – its ranking dropped by 13 points between 2021 and 2022, implying that 13 countries (including Angola, Cameroon, Comoros, Kenya, Solomon Islands, and Zambia) outperformed Zimbabwe in improving their levels of human capability in 2022.

    This notwithstanding, Zimbabwe is ranked 22nd in Africa, along with Uganda. It is also one of the best 10 countries in Africa on mean years of schooling – and one of the best 15 in Gender Development Index with a value of 0.936 out of 1.0.

    To build on successes and even further advance Zimbabwe’s development, there remains quite a lot we can do.

    The United Nations Development Programme, (UNDP) in partnership with the Government of Zimbabwe, is making significant strides towards achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) for Zimbabwe, with real successes in areas of food security (SDG2), health and wellbeing (SDG3), access to energy (SDG7), and building resilience (a cross-cutting issue) across the SDGs.

    Towards eliminating hunger, UNDP and the Government of Zimbabwe have supported over 40,000 farmers in southern Zimbabwe with climate-smart crop varieties, producing nutritious produce resistant to climate stress.

    These efforts have produced yields as high as 74% beyond traditional harvest levels, supported by new climate-change informed infrastructure, such as automatic weather stations, rain gauges, hydro stations, and irrigation facilities – with over 1.1 million beneficiaries.

    This partnership has also established 230 Farmer Field Schools to establish peer-to-peer learning between smallholder farmers.

    Further, an ongoing partnership has ensured that 98% of Zimbabwe’s 1.3 million people living with HIV are currently on Anti-Retroviral Therapy, while 1,044 health facilities have now installed solar power, including 447 solarized boreholes to supply safe water. In terms of staffing, 25,000 critical health workers are now on paid retention to provide support, along with 6,606 village health workers.

    Additional government partnerships led to the installation of a 152 kilowatt solar minigrid system with lithium battery storage in Binge and Chipinge, as well as 150 biogas digesters to facilitate safer, environmentally-friendly cooking. Existing boreholes are now equipped with solar pumps and improved water storage, while 100 vulnerable households now have solar household lighting.

    Programmes to build resilience in Zimbabwean communities trained thousands of people on new vocational skills, provided affordable financial services to smallholders, and supported livestock management to over 85,000 farmers – investing dramatically to improve the quality of life with the support of our development partners.

    These achievements are all thanks to the partnership and collaboration among the Ministry of Health and Child Care, the Global Fund, and UNDP Zimbabwe, as well as strategic collaboration with the European Union, the UK Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO), and the governments of Sweden and Denmark.

    While these efforts constitute solid progress, of course more must be done.

    One major challenge that development partners must confront is the “chilling effect” the debt arrears – and other economic conditions – have had on Foreign Direct Investments. I want to commend the 2024 Budget of the Government of Zimbabwe that committed $55 million to deal with issues relating to the Global Compensation Deed and Bilateral Investment Protection and Promotion Agreements.

    Committed implementation of the budgetary provision and improved governance across all levels of government are all key to accelerating progress on clearing debt arrears.

    While UNDP and its Government partners have cooperated in a Structured Dialogue Platform to decrease debt and increase Zimbabwe’s fiscal health, more must be done by creditors to clear Zimbabwe of these external debt arrears. Rolling back the arrears, placing the country towards a financially healthy condition, would signify the kind of risk reduction that appeals to private investment.

    To this end, the Government alone cannot achieve the SDGs. Instead, a whole-of-society approach is central to their achievement. The private sector must be aggressively engaged to profitably invest in Zimbabwe’s development, offering sustainable opportunities to build upon the above achievements, scaling up the kinds of successes that dramatically advance achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals.

    Towards providing all stakeholders – including the general public – with valuable services and constructive information, Zimbabwe’s CSOs and media houses have a valuable role to play, as well.

    Too many opportunities for progress exist to be disheartened. As always, we have solutions as well as problems – and our own dedication, hard work, and ingenuity remain key to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals.

    Dr. Ayodele Odusola is UNDP Zimbabwe Resident Representative.

    These are Algeria, Botswana, Comoros, Cote d’Ivoire, Djibouti, Congo (Democratic Republic), Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Liberia, Libya, Madagascar, Morocco, Nigeria, Niger, Rwanda, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Tanzania, Togo, and Uganda

    IPS UN Bureau


    Follow IPS News UN Bureau on Instagram

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

    Global Issues

    Source link

  • How A Program in Ghana to Create Green Jobs Can Be a Lesson for US Mayors & Across the Globe

    How A Program in Ghana to Create Green Jobs Can Be a Lesson for US Mayors & Across the Globe

    • Opinion by Elizabeth K. T. Sackey, Vittoria Zanuso (accra / new york)
    • Inter Press Service

    For Chiso, accessing the formal labor market has been challenging due to factors like obtaining a national ID. Without access to a formal job, Chiso has no negotiating power, leaving him at the mercy of fluctuating market prices and aggressive competitors, jeopardizing his health and livelihood.

    For years, Accra has faced two concurrent trends: the arrival of displaced people like Chiso into the city from elsewhere in the country and West Africa, and a growing need for workers in green jobs to make the city cleaner, healthier and safer. Many displaced people in Accra, like most other cities, struggle to find good-paying jobs.

    At the same time, Accra grapples with improper waste management – the World Bank estimates that around 20,000 Ghanaians die prematurely each year from poor water, sanitation and hygiene, most of them living in Accra,

    Teaming up with the Mayors Migration Council, the Accra Metropolitan Assembly devised a solution to tackle both of these issues at once, and turn what could be seen as a challenge into the opportunity to build a greener, more inclusive city: we would help migrant workers enroll in formal waste cooperatives, while helping fill gaps in the city’s waste management value chain.

    Since the program’s launch last year with support from the Global Cities Fund for Migrants and Refugees, we’ve successfully established a cooperative of 40 waste workers and assisted over 250 people in situations similar to Chiso’s register for national health insurance.

    We also convened national and city authorities to advocate for nationwide policy changes to make it easier for migrants to access jobs by simplifying requirements for national identification and other services.

    And we’re alleviating the daily strains that migrants in Accra face, such as creating a child care center in a major hub for informal waste workers to provide safe spaces for children away from the hazardous sites where their parents work.

    This program not only demonstrates what happens when funds are given directly to the governments closest to the people, but also illustrates how migrants can fill employment gaps, contributing to greener and more inclusive cities. And it can be done anywhere in the world – including in the U.S.

    Like Ghana, many cities have large numbers of migrants eager to work in the formal economy, coupled with a shortage of workers to take on green jobs. In the U.S. this is particularly the case following recent investments from the Inflation Reduction Act that will boost the green labor market with more than 1.5 million new clean energy jobs by 2030.

    Given the large scale of labor demands, this could result in a worker shortage. But migrant workers could play an important role in accelerating the green transition by filling skills gaps and labor needs like those that are expected in the U.S. in the next few years. We believe that mayors across the U.S. and the globe could also develop win-win programs that match migrants who want to work with jobs that cities need to fill.

    Several U.S. mayors for example, including Mayor Ron Nirenberg in San Antonio, Mayor Kate Gallego in Phoenix, Mayor Karen Bass in Los Angeles, Mayor Mike Johnson in Denver, and Mayor Brandon Johnson in Chicago, have already been champions for migrants in their communities.

    In these cities, migrants constitute a large proportion of the workforce in rapidly growing green industries like waste management and manufacturing.

    As the number of migrants and displaced individuals seeking refuge in cities continues to rise in the U.S. and worldwide, there’s a need to support the mayors embracing them as active contributors to the transition to a green economy. Despite doing more with less, mayors often lack access to the funding and resources needed to implement solutions like Accra’s at scale.

    Accra’s green jobs program serves as a model for the effectiveness of directly funding mayors who know their cities’ needs and opportunities best. We call on the philanthropic community to join us and lead by example by localizing their giving and investing directly in cities, and we call on mayors across the world to consider how they can create win-win opportunities for migrants and their city’s economies.

    Elizabeth K. T. Sackey is Mayor of Accra, Ghana and Vittoria Zanuso is Executive Director of the Mayors Migration Council.

    IPS UN Bureau


    Follow IPS News UN Bureau on Instagram

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

    Global Issues

    Source link

  • Stepping Up Investment in Latin American Women is Imperative

    Stepping Up Investment in Latin American Women is Imperative

    Women’s demonstrations to demand respect for their rights are held in Latin American cities on Mar. 8, International Women’s Day, calling on governments in the region to invest in promoting gender equality. The photo shows a march in Lima on Mar. 8, 2023. CREDIT: Walter Hupiú / IPS
    • by Mariela Jara (lima)
    • Inter Press Service

    For Mar. 8, International Women’s Day, United Nations agencies have focused on progress made towards the gender targets of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) of the 2030 Agenda approved in 2015.

    “In our region, only 25 percent of the targets for which information is available in the SDG monitoring indicators allow us to foresee their fulfillment by 2030,” said Ana Güezmes, chief of the Division for Gender Affairs of the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC).

    From ECLAC headquarters in Santiago, Chile she told IPS that 48 percent of the goals have seen progress, albeit insufficient, in the right direction, while there has been backsliding on 27 percent.

    The slogan set by the United Nations for this Mar. 8 is “Invest in Women: Accelerate Progress”, calling for greater spending by governments to achieve SDG 5, which has a global deficit of 360 billion dollars per year.

    In the region, there are both progress and concerns regarding SDG 5, which refers to achieving gender equality and empowering women and girls.

    Güezmes said the region is moving ahead in terms of strengthening policies and laws, but that the challenge is to accelerate the implementation and enforcement of government measures in order to increase the rate of progress towards substantive equality.

    She said improvement has been slow towards other SDG 5 targets, such as the elimination of violence against women and girls, the eradication of child marriage, and the recognition and valuation of unpaid domestic and care work. And she added that the region continues to lag behind in technology for the empowerment of women.

    Güezmes, a physician by profession, and an advocate for women’s human rights, a care society and gender equality, has held senior positions in the region at UN Women, the UN Population Fund (UNFPA), the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Pan-American Health Organization (PAHO) over the past 30 years.

    Greater inequality among poor, indigenous and rural populations

    Latin America and the Caribbean, which in 2022 was home to 334.627 million girls and women, 50.8 percent of the regional population according to the World Bank, are facing several crises.

    The region was one of the hardest hit by the Covid-19 pandemic and for the last 10 years has averaged a meager 0.8 percent annual economic growth rate, affecting its population, which is suffering from poverty, food insecurity and lack of employment, all of which hit girls and women harder.

    On Feb. 28, ECLAC, in partnership with UN Women, presented a study on the state of progress towards gender equality in the region, which highlighted the gaps that hinder the rights of women, girls and adolescents.

    Three out of 10 girls and women live in poverty and one out of 10 in extreme poverty, with higher rates among indigenous, black and rural women. Likewise, four out of 10 women suffer some level of food insecurity and hunger.

    Of those over 15 years of age, 25 percent have no income of their own, a proportion that rises to 40 percent among those in the lowest socioeconomic quintile.

    Nayda Quispe, from the Peruvian department of Cuzco, is one of the 3.4 million rural women in the Andean country. She has dedicated her life to agriculture and, at 62 years of age, is well aware of the harsh reality of rural life for women.

    “We constantly experience inequality here. Women work all day, but are not paid or recognized for their efforts, continue to be pushed to the back burner, and because of economic dependence stay in violent relationships,” she told IPS during a meeting ahead of Mar. 8 in Cuzco, the capital of the southern Andean department.

    Quispe is one of the few women in her rural environment who managed to continue her studies, graduating as a biologist and working for a few years in her profession without losing her link with agroecology, to which she is now fully dedicated.

    She criticized governments for building cement works instead of investing in education and training for women that would allow them to have decent jobs and earn their own money. “As long as this does not change, we will continue to be the forgotten ones as always,” she complained.

    The ECLAC study shows that in Guatemala and Honduras, more than 50 percent and 43 percent of women, respectively, have no income of their own – among the highest levels in the region.

    Güezmes stressed the impact this has on women’s economic independence, a necessary condition for physical autonomy and a life free of violence.

    “Gender-based violence against women and girls occurs systematically and persistently in the region, in both the domestic and public spheres,” she said.

    She highlighted the problem of early and forced child marriages and unions, which affect one out of every five girls in the region. Suriname, Nicaragua, Honduras, Belize, the Dominican Republic and Guyana lead with percentages above 30 percent. Only four countries have percentages below 20 percent: Costa Rica, Argentina, Peru and Jamaica.

    In addition, the ECLAC study reports that in this region, considered to have the highest levels of gender-based violence, an average of 338 women per month and 11 per day are victims of gender-based homicide, or femicide. In 2022 at least 4050 women fell victim to this crime, 70 percent of whom were of reproductive age between 15 and 44 years.

    Achievements at risk

    The weakening of democracies in the region has had a direct impact on women’s rights. Achievements in gender institutionality in Argentina, for example, are in marked decline, including the right to abortion, under the government of far-right President Javier Milei, thus affecting progress towards the SDGs.

    “Under Milei, women and minorities are heavily harassed. The era of rights is over; the right wing has arrived to cut back on the advances we had made in sexual and reproductive rights, gender equality and LGTBIQ+ rights,” María Eugenia Sarrias, president of Lxs Safinas, a lesbian feminist organization based in the Argentine city of Rosario, told IPS.

    She added from that city that the setbacks in social policies have caused shortages in soup kitchens and school lunches. “They’re trying to pay the debt with the hunger of the people. The freedom they talk about is only for those who hold power and have money. We, women and minorities, are facing a very big risk,” she warned.

    In El Salvador, President Nayib Bukele announced this month, as his first measure after his landslide reelection, the elimination of all vestiges of the gender perspective in public education, shortly after participating in a gathering of far-right leaders with former U.S. president and candidate Donald Trump.

    There is also great concern in Ecuador, where emergency measures are in place to deal with organized crime.

    “There are many more women who are impoverished, migrants and victims of violence not only from their partners but also from groups linked to crime,” Clara Merino, coordinator of the Luna Creciente National Movement of Women from Popular Sectors, told IPS.

    She argued from Quito that if things continue the way they are going, it will not be possible to achieve gender equality by 2030. “The budget for education, health, human rights and women has been cut. It is impossible for government action to reach the territories where indigenous and black women live, where hunger, child malnutrition and migration of young people are on the rise,” she stressed.

    Investing in care

    Güezmes said that “in the context of low and volatile economic growth in the region, it is necessary to invest in women, because there is a historical debt to their rights and because this kind of spending has the potential to accelerate sustainable development.”

    She gave as an example investment in the care system to break the vicious circle of exclusion and transform it into a virtuous one with multiple positive social and economic effects such as generating employment, higher income and well-being.

    “We are the only region in the last 45 years that has promoted an ambitious and comprehensive Regional Gender Agenda that, through the Buenos Aires Commitment, says care should be seen as a right, a need and a job. Addressing it in these three dimensions is essential to achieve the profound change that our societies need,” she underlined.

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

    Global Issues

    Source link

  • International Women’s Day, 2024; Support the Women and Girls Fighting for Rights

    International Women’s Day, 2024; Support the Women and Girls Fighting for Rights

    • Opinion by Winnie Byanyima (geneva, switzerland)
    • Inter Press Service
    • The writer is UNAIDS Executive Director and United Nations Under-Secretary-General. The following opinion piece is part of series to mark International Women’s Day, March 8.

    Today, more than ever, we need to put our energies and resources in support of their courage. We are facing an unprecedented and well-funded global attack on human rights and especially on the rights of women. Hard-won progress is in peril. It is not just the commitments made in the Sustainable Development Goals for 2030 that are under threat. It is everything we have gained since 1945.

    How do we push back against the pushback? How do we make sure our daughters can live in a kinder, safer, world, in which their rights are upheld and respected? How do we make sure women and girls are included in policy making that affects their lives?

    Firstly, we need to deepen our understanding of this pushback on human rights and democracy.

    Democracy is threatened when inequalities deepen. Today, more and more wealth is being concentrated in the hands a few men. The world’s five richest billionaires have doubled their fortunes since 2020 – while five billion people became poorer.

    Globally, men own US$105 trillion more wealth than women. And the world’s poorest countries are being forced to cut public spending because of the debt crisis, which particularly impacts women and girls from poor communities.

    The world is very far off track to meet the gender targets set in the Sustainable Development Goals because, as UN Women concludes, of “deeply rooted biases against women, manifesting in unequal access to sexual and reproductive health, unequal political representation, economic disparities and a lack of legal protection.” As the UN Secretary-General has urged, there is a need for a “dismantling and transformation of power structures that discriminate against women and girls”.

    We need to tackle unequal access to education and information. When 122 million of our girls are still out of school, and even millions who attend school are denied lifesaving information on how to protect themselves from HIV, everyone loses.

    We need to challenge the lie that women’s rights undermine culture and tradition.

    And we need to resolutely confront the globally coordinated ruthless campaign to punish people for who they are and who they love. We need to put the human rights of every person at the centre of all our development efforts, just as we have been doing in the AIDS movement for decades. Because to protect the wellbeing of everyone, the health of everyone, we have to protect the rights of everyone.

    Progress requires a deepening of multilateralism and a deepening of support for civil society. So it is concerning when countries, including in the West, retreat from their international commitments to development and human rights. And it is concerning when only 1% of all the aid going to gender equality reaches women’s and girls’ organizations.

    We are not mourning, however, we are organizing. We can be hopeful because we have won before and we can again. To do so, we need to remember that hope is not idle optimism. It is active. We will win together, through determined collaborative action.

    That is how we won the right to vote. That is how we opened the doors of parliaments and corporate board rooms. That is how we closed the gap between boys and girls in basic education. That is how won progress in moving away from the old colonial punitive laws that criminalised LGBTQ people, so that today two-thirds of countries no longer criminalize. That is how we won progress on the rights of people living with HIV, with three quarters of people living with HIV now on treatment.

    We cannot give up or slow down on this unfinished journey of progress, or retreat because opponents of progress are well-organised. The stakes are too high, the risks if we act with a lack or courage are too great, the costs of insufficient action are unaffordable.

    This is a moment that calls for unwavering support for women and girls on the frontlines, and for intersectional alliances in defence of everyone’s human rights. We need to strengthen the hand of those whose lives are most impacted by the denial of rights. The United Nations is clear: we are not only on the side of the frontline defenders of rights; we are by their side.

    IPS UN Bureau


    Follow IPS News UN Bureau on Instagram

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

    Global Issues

    Source link

  • Start-ups Powering up Africas Solar Energy Ecosystem

    Start-ups Powering up Africas Solar Energy Ecosystem

    • Opinion by Finbarr Toesland (nairobi, kenya)
    • Inter Press Service

    Due to energy production and infrastructure challenges, many African countries regularly deal with blackouts, brownouts and poor electricity supply. Then the COVID-19 pandemic hit the global economy hard, and commodity prices surged after the invasion of Ukraine, making energy even more difficult for poorer Africans to buy.

    Increasingly, start-ups rather than established corporations are offering access to advanced solar energy solutions to the majority of people across Africa. By harnessing the sun’s power and transitioning to clean energy, Africans can expect major economic and social developments across the continent.

    Solar energy brightens other industries

    Headquartered in Nairobi, SunCulture has raised over $40 million to equip rural farmers with solar-powered irrigation systems. Instead of counting on rainfall or revving up diesel or petrol pumps, farmers can now rely on solar-powered systems that are cheaper, use renewable energy and need minimal maintenance.

    Once the company installs a solar panel on top of a farmer’s house and connects it to a battery-powered water pump, the irrigation system can cover up to three acres.

    “Solar is particularly attractive because of its positive environmental impact, job creation potential, and economic development potential,” said Mikayla Czajkowski, chief of staff at SunCulture.

    “African nations have immense potential to benefit from utilizing solar energy – especially in remote and under-served regions where energy access is limited – and facilitates a reduction in the continent’s carbon footprint, making a valuable contribution to global efforts to combat climate change,” Ms. Czajkowski added.

    In an impact survey of SunCulture’s customers, measurement company 60 Decibels found that SunCulture brought about significant improvements: 89 per cent of smallholder farmers experienced a boost in their quality of life, 90 per cent increased their production, and 87 per cent enhanced their earnings.

    Ambitious start-ups

    From GridX Africa, a firm that offers off-grid solar power to farms, safari lodges for tourists and construction projects in Kenya, Mozambique and Tanzania, to the pay-as-you-go solar company Bboxx and the Egypt-based solar power developer and electricity distributor KarmSolar, Africa has no shortage of original solar energy start-ups.

    While the ambitions of these solar businesses are laudable, achieving high levels of growth is not easy.

    Emily McAteer, founder and chief executive officer, of Odyssey Energy Solutions spent more than a decade working to finance and build distributed solar projects across Africa and India.

    Her firm provides technology and finance solutions for distributed renewable energy businesses. At every stage of project development, she hit key bottlenecks that make it hard for solar companies like hers to scale.

    By offering tools for solar developers to aggregate and pitch portfolios of projects to financiers, firms can access capital more effectively. To procure equipment more effectively, Odyssey streamlined the procurement process by negotiating directly with original equipment manufacturers for better prices and warranties and by working with developers for supply chain support.

    “Operations and maintenance, especially in remote areas, can be a big hurdle,” Ms. McAteer said. “We offer hardware and software that sits on top of solar assets so that operators and investors can get deep insight into performance and optimize performance of their systems.”

    Global initiatives need catalytic capital

    More than 500 million people living in Africa have no access to electricity, according the IEA Africa Energy Outlook 2022. Governments and non-governmental organizations have launched many high-profile schemes to boost the solar energy sector in African countries, with mixed success. The continent needs a global response to address a challenge of this immense scale.

    Launched in 2012, the US-Africa Clean Energy Finance (US-ACEF) initiative attempted to offset the costs of the early-stage development of clean energy projects, in a bid to draw investment to these ventures.

    Solar is particularly attractive because of its positive environmental and economic impacts.

    For Ms. McAteer, the US-ACEF model proved effective. Now innovators need higher levels of catalytic capital to continue scaling so that they can meet the UN Sustainable Development Goal 7, “Ensuring access to Clean and Affordable Energy.”

    “Annual capital investment in renewables in emerging markets needs to reach $1 trillion per year if the world is to achieve the goal of net-zero emissions by 2050. US-ACEF set the model for how the industry can achieve that,” Ms. McAteer said. “Now the missing piece is continued investment from both public and private financiers.”

    Innovation underway across Africa

    So far, the US-ACEF has supported 32 projects, with country-specific investments in Ethiopia, Kenya, Morocco, Namibia, Nigeria, Rwanda, Senegal, South Africa, Tanzania and Uganda.

    Nijhad Jamal, managing partner of Equator, an early-stage venture capital firm focusing on climate technology in sub-Saharan Africa, agrees that Africa’s solar energy sector has benefited greatly from US-ACEF.

    “There is a lot more impact to come from US-ACEF with projects like the Health Electrification Alliance, which aims to electrify over 10,000 health facilities in Africa,” Mr. Jamal said. “Most of the US-ACEF projects emphasize sustainability. In our opinion, this will have a lasting impact on the solar energy sector.”

    Source: Africa Renewal– a United Nations digital magazine that covers Africa’s economic, social and political developments—and the challenges the continent faces and the solutions to these by Africans themselves, including with the support of the United Nations and international community.

    IPS UN Bureau


    Follow IPS News UN Bureau on Instagram

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

    Global Issues

    Source link

  • From Memory to Policy

    From Memory to Policy


    In Gaza, every day is a struggle to find bread and water. Without safe water, many people will die from deprivation and disease. Credit: UNRWA
    • Opinion by Robert Misik (vienna, austria)
    • Inter Press Service

    At the beginning of October, Hamas and other Islamist groups not only launched an attack from the Gaza strip but also carried out a cruel massacre. Over 1 200 people were killed, most of them civilians, young party people, including many peace activists: the majority of the inhabitants of the affected kibbutzim belonged to the Israeli left.

    Horrific war crimes were committed, which cannot be justified as ‘collateral damage’ of legitimate resistance. Nor can we ignore the fanatical ideology of radical Islamism, which eliminates empathy and justifies acts of bloodshed.

    However, due to the bloody history of at least 75 years of conflict and the recent history of occupation policies and the irresponsible escalation strategies of Benjamin Netanyahu’s radical right-wing governments, the attack met much approval within the Palestinian population. Fatah and the Palestinian Authority have been weakened for years, and their support is dwindling.

    Rights and obligations

    The Israeli government responded with massive military action and retaliatory strikes. This, on the one hand, was to be expected – no nation in the world could not have reacted to such an attack – but, on the other hand, the war immediately escalated in a horrific manner, which was, unfortunately, also to be expected. Around 27 000 people have now lost their lives in Gaza. Entire families have been wiped out by the bombardments.

    Under international law, Israel has the right to respond to such an attack, but every country also has the duty to act ‘proportionately’. What is proportionate – in relation to threats or to defined, legitimate war aims – is a complicated legal debate.

    But it is largely undisputed that the shrugging acceptance of tens of thousands of civilian casualties cannot be justified, even in the fight against a ‘terrorist’ organisation. And excessive force that literally razes Gaza to the ground, which destroys the livelihoods of the civilian population, the supply of food and the medical-care system, is itself a war crime.

    Put quite simply: to a bestial war crime by Hamas, Israel has itself responded with war crimes. And the matter is made worse by the fact that leading members of Israel’s government have engaged in appalling rhetoric, from Manichean religious-war language to vile fantasies of mass expulsions and ‘ethnic cleansing’.

    Just as the history of the conflict has for decades provided both sides with arguments for viewing the other as the perpetrator and their own side only as the victim, the same has been true in these recent months. Palestinian figures see Hamas’ actions as a justified reaction to oppression, while their Israeli counterparts see excessive (and criminal) military action as a legitimate response to terror.

    Yet, that is precisely the problem. Those who paint a Manichean, black-and-white picture fall far short of the terrible complexities of this conflict. There are horrible pogroms in the West Bank by right-wing extremist settlers and members of the army, and violent expulsions of Palestinians and an expropriation of their land. And there are terrible acts of violence involving unspeakable cruelty by Palestinian militias.

    But the world is increasingly sorting itself into vocal supporter groups of fans and followers. In many societies, this is obviously about their own history and identity. To be more precise: a complex reality is being accommodated to the apparent requirements of their domestic politics of remembrance — and if it doesn’t fit, it is being made to.

    Manipulation strategies

    Germany and Austria have adopted a decidedly pro-Israeli position. First, this can be explained by their own history, the fatal past of genocidal anti-Semitism which escalated under the Nazi regime into the Shoah against European Jews.

    This is why Germany has been an ally of Israel for decades: the former chancellor, Angela Merkel, declared it an important element of the German Staatsräson (reason of state). This is why there is, properly, a strong sensitivity in Germany towards anti-Semitism and the threat to Jews and why the identity of Israel as a safe ‘home’ for all Jews is supported.

    The extreme right in both Germany and Austria supports Israel today, on the one hand because Israel’s opponents are Muslims (whom it hates even more than contemporary Jews) and on the other because this is the best way to immunise itself against the accusation of being ‘Nazi’.

    In addition, however, the Israeli right – above all the prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, and his party, in alliance with right-wing Jewish lobby groups abroad – has sought in recent decades to denounce almost any criticism of Israeli policy as ‘anti-Semitic’ and thus morally eliminate it.

    In German-speaking countries and some other societies with a very well-founded sense of guilt, this manipulation strategy has worked: nobody wants to expose themselves to the suspicion of being seen as a person with morally reprehensible opinions — in other words, as an anti-Semite.

    Susan Neiman, a Jewish-German-American intellectual who is director of the Berlin Einstein Centre, recently wrote a major essay in the New York Review of Books in which she spoke of a ‘philosemitic McCarthyism’ that had taken on the characteristics of ‘hysteria’.

    Things had gone so far that ‘non-Jewish Germans publicly accuse Jewish writers, artists and activists of anti-Semitism’. As in the early postwar campaign of denunciation of ‘anti-Americanism’ led by Senator Joseph McCarthy, dissenting views are silenced.

    In extreme cases, this has had bizarre consequences. Conferences have been banned, at which large numbers of people with the most diverse views should have been exchanging them. In Kassel, an Indian art critic and curator lost his position because he had signed a (rather stupid) Israel boycott petition years ago, despite having unequivocally condemned ‘the terror unleashed by Hamas on 7 October’ as a ‘terrible massacre’.

    A Berlin theatre removed from its programme a humorous play (The Situation) about the conflict of narratives by the Austro-Israeli playwright Yael Ronen — now that the situation ‘puts us on Israel’s side’.

    ‘Israel’ has become a ‘trigger point’ in the culture wars, as with ‘wokeness’ or similar themes elsewhere. ‘Part of a proper culture war is … to want to misunderstand the other side at all costs’, the critic Hanno Rautenberg wrote recently in the Hamburg weekly Die Zeit, about the German debates on Israel: ‘One wrong word or even just one unsaid word and you’re threatened with discursive excommunication.’

    No doubt there are forms of criticism of specific Israeli policies that carry more than just anti-Semitic overtones, but in most cases, this is far from reality. As a result, German public opinion is oddly many times more ‘pro-Israeli’ than Israeli public opinion itself.

    Good and evil, oppressor and oppressed

    If there is one-sidedness in the discourse in the German-speaking world, this certainly exists in other parts of the world as well, and not only in Muslim or Arab countries such as Turkey, Iran, Jordan or Indonesia.

    In the United States, Britain and other societies, significant sections of the public and the academic left cultivate their own one-sidedness. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is described in categories of imperialism and colonialism, into which it hardly fits.

    The ‘post-colonial’ left has adopted theories, some of which are quite inspiring and have opened up productive new intellectual horizons, but it has radicalised them into Manichean delusions. The world is divided into oppressor and oppressed — and, in this simple-minded worldview, the person identified as the ‘oppressed’ is always right. Since oppressors can never even comprehend the experiences of the oppressed, the oppressed must always be proved right.

    From there, it is only a small step to the final clicking into place: the Palestinians are black / ‘people of colour’, the Jews are white, and in Israel, they are beacons of ‘US imperialism’. Even if one cannot find everything Hamas does to be right, as an authentic expression of the resistance of the oppressed against the system of oppression it is ‘right’ in a higher way. Israel, on the other hand, is a ‘settler-colonialist’ project.

    Since, in this perspective, the idea of free debate is a ‘bourgeois ideology’ only invented to support the ruling power, dissenting views should be delegitimised or, if necessary, shouted down, because what is deemed ‘sayable’ and what ‘non-sayable’ is merely an effect of power.

    Just as in Germany, any criticism of Israel is labelled ‘anti-Semitic’ and thus compromised as morally culpable, so any defence of Israel’s right to exist is dismissed as an expression of ‘racism’.

    Amid all this dogmatism, one gets the impression the whole world has gone mad. While Germany unconditionally supports Israel, as an imperative of its own guilt and exterminationist anti-Semitism, American, British and other discourses are also characterised by the imperatives of their own history: racism, the genocide of indigenous populations, the enslavement of black people, imperial exploitation, colonial oppression and exploitation. Fragments of the real are used arbitrarily and pressed into the scheme of one’s own politics of memory, for which ‘identity politics’ is then actually the opposite decryption.

    Most of the time, all this has less to do with real Palestinians and real Israelis than who and what one wants to be — how one wants to see the world and oneself in it. One poses as a heroic fighter against anti-Semitism, or against racism and colonialism, while the external appurtenances of reality become at most the set for this show of the self, as props in a play— to whose script reality must be made to conform.

    Source: Social Europe and International Politics and Society (IPS)-Journal, Brussels.

    Robert Misik is a writer and essayist. He publishes in many German-language newspapers and magazines, including Die Zeit and Die Tageszeitung.

    IPS UN Bureau


    Follow IPS News UN Bureau on Instagram

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





    Global Issues

    Source link

  • Unlocking India’s Potential with AI

    Unlocking India’s Potential with AI


    A new UN Advisory Body is expected to make recommendations on international governance of AI. The members of the AI Advisory Body – launched October 2023 by Secretary-General António Guterres – will examine the risks, opportunities and international governance of these technologies. Credit: Unsplash/Steve Johnson
    • Opinion by Nandan Nilekani, Tanuj Bhojwani (bangalore, india)
    • Inter Press Service

    India is on the cusp of a technological revolution that could alter the trajectory of its social and economic future, and in this revolution. there are lessons for the rest of the world.

    Our prediction hinges on three facts: India needs it, India is ready for it, and India will do it.

    India needs it

    The concept of “China plus one” has been gaining traction, with its admonition that global companies should not depend inordinately on China for their manufacturing and software needs.

    India, with its growing infrastructure investments, favorable policies, and young working population, is the most likely beneficiary of this shift. It is perhaps the only country poised to match the scale of China.

    With 1.4 billion people, India is closer to a continent than a country. Its population is almost twice that of Europe. But the average age in India is 28, compared with Europe’s 44, which means a higher share of the population is of working age. This is the starting point: India is a very large country of very young people.

    This demographic dividend, favorable global trends, and the unlocking of decades of suppressed potential are starting to show returns. Even as the macroeconomic projections for most of the world seem modest or bleak, India remains a bright spot. These young Indians are aspirational and motivated to use every opportunity to better their lives.

    What really sets India apart from the West are its unique challenges and needs. India’s diverse population and complex socioeconomic concerns mean that AI there is not just about developing cutting-edge technology. It’s about finding innovative solutions to address pressing problems in health care, education, agriculture, and sustainability.

    Though our population is just double the size of Europe’s, we are much more diverse. Indians, like Europeans, are often bi- or multilingual. India recognizes 19,500 dialects spoken by at least 10,000 people. Based on data from the Indian census, two Indians selected at random have only a 36 percent chance of speaking a common language.

    This language barrier is complicated by the fact that the official literacy rate in the country hovers near 77 percent, varying vastly between states. This means that roughly 1 in 4 people can’t read or write. Even though the government tries to provide welfare assistance for its most vulnerable, it’s hard to spread awareness about the service and reach the last mile.

    Filling out a simple form to access welfare can be daunting for someone who is illiterate. Determining eligibility for assistance means depending on someone who can read, write, and navigate the bureaucracy.

    Actually. receiving services means assistance seekers must have an agent helping them who is not misinformed—or worse, corrupt. These barriers disproportionately affect those who need government assistance the most.

    We have the ability to solve a lot of problems for our population, but the hard part has always been in the distribution, not the solution. In India, we believe that AI can help bridge this access gap.

    AI enables people to access services directly with their voice using natural language, empowering them to help themselves. As Canadian writer William Gibson aptly said, “The future is already here—it’s just not evenly distributed.” Nowhere is this more glaringly evident than in India.

    The rest of the world has been eyeing AI with curiosity, waiting for real-use cases. In India, we see potential today. While this may be true of many other developing economies, the other important factor is that.

    The rest of the world has been eyeing AI with curiosity, waiting for real-use cases. In India, we see potential today.

    India is ready for it

    India’s population isn’t just young, it is connected. According to the country’s telecommunications sector regulator, India has more than 790 million mobile broadband users. Internet penetration continues to increase, and with the availability of affordable data plans, more and more people are online. This has created a massive user base for AI applications and services.

    But where India has surpassed all others is in its digital public infrastructure. Today, nearly every Indian has a digital identity under the Aadhaar system. The Aadhaar is a 12-digit unique identity number with an option for users to authenticate themselves digitally—that is, to prove they are who they claim to be.

    Further, India set up a low-cost, real-time, interoperable payment system. This means that any user of any bank can pay any other person or merchant using any other bank instantly and at no cost.

    This system—the Unified Payments Interface—handles more than 10 billion transactions a month. It is the largest real-time payment system in the world and handles about 60 percent of real-time payment transactions worldwide.

    With the success of these models, India is embracing innovation in open networks as digital public infrastructure. Take the example of Namma Yatri, a ride-hailing network built in collaboration with the union of auto-rickshaw drivers in Bangalore and launched in November 2022.

    These drivers have their own app, with a flat fee to use it, no percentage commission and no middleman. The app has facilitated close to 90,000 rides a day, almost as many as ride-hailing companies in the city.

    Unlike Western countries, which have legacy systems to overhaul, India’s tabula rasa means that AI-first systems can be built from the ground up. The quick adoption of digital public infrastructure is the bedrock for these technologies.

    Such infrastructure generates enormous amounts of data, and thanks to India’s Account Aggregator framework, the data remain under the citizens’ control, further encouraging public trust and utilization. With this solid footing, India is well positioned to lead the charge in AI adoption.

    India will do it

    In September 2023, the Indian government, in collaboration with the EkStep foundation, launched the PM-Kisan chatbot. This AI chatbot works with PM-Kisan, India’s direct benefit transfer program for farmers, initiated in 2019 to extend financial help to farmers who own their own land.

    Access to the program, getting relevant information, and resolving grievances was always a problem for the farmers. The new chatbot gives farmers the ability to know their eligibility and the status of their application and payments using just their voice. On launch day more than 500,000 users chatted with the bot, and features are being released slowly to ensure a safe and risk-managed rollout.

    These steps are part of an encouraging trend of early adoption of new technology by the Indian government. But the trend extends beyond the government. India’s vibrant tech ecosystem has taken off as well, a direct offshoot of its booming IT exports—currently at nearly $250 billion a year.

    Next to those from the US, the largest number of developers on GitHub, a cloud-based service for software development, are from India. This sector not only innovates but also widely adopts digital public infrastructure.

    The effect is cyclical: start-ups feed the growing tech culture and, in turn, leverage the data to build more precise and beneficial AI tools. India’s dynamic start-up ecosystem, moreover, is actively working on AI solutions to address various challenges.

    AI can be a game changer in education as well, helping close the literacy gap. AI technologies are uniquely positioned to help students learn in their native languages, as well as learn English. AI’s applications are useful not only for students; they extend to teachers, who are often overwhelmed by administrative tasks that detract from teaching.

    As AI takes over routine tasks in government and start-ups, the roles of teachers and students evolve, and they form dynamic partnerships focused on deep learning and meaningful human interaction.

    What India needs is a strategic plan to chase down the most important opportunities for AI to help. The trick is not to look too hard at the technology but to look at the problems people face that existing technology has been unable to solve.

    And organizations such as EkStep have stepped up with a mission called People+AI. Instead of putting AI first, they focus on the problems of people. This has led to surprising new uses unique to India.

    India’s emerging status as a technological powerhouse, combined with its unique socioeconomic landscape, puts it in a favorable position to be the world’s most extensive user of AI by the end of this decade.

    From streamlining education to aiding in social protection programs, AI has the potential to deeply penetrate Indian society, effecting broad and meaningful change.

    Nandan Nilekani is the chairman and cofounder of Infosys and founding chairman of UIDAI (Aadhaar); Tanuj Bhojwani is head of People+AI

    Source: IMF Finance & Development

    Opinions expressed in articles and other materials are those of the authors; they do not necessarily reflect IMF policy.

    IPS UN Bureau

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



    Global Issues

    Source link

  • Is the Reform of the UN Security Council a Good Try in a Lost Cause?

    Is the Reform of the UN Security Council a Good Try in a Lost Cause?


    UN General Assembly meets on the question of equitable representation– and increase in membership of the Security Council. November 2023. Credit: UN Photo/Eskinder Debebe
    • by Thalif Deen (united nations)
    • Inter Press Service

    “Violence and war continue to spread in regions across the world, while the United Nations seems paralyzed due largely to the divisions in the Security Council,” he said.

    With the world changing quickly, the Council is “dangerously falling short” of its mandate as the primary custodian for the maintenance of international peace and security, he said.

    Meanwhile, a proposed new model for reforms, initiated by the Group of Four (G4: Brazil, Germany, India, and Japan), has been doing the rounds.

    Not surprisingly, all four countries have been longstanding contenders for permanent seats (P5s) which have remained the privilege of five countries since the creation of the world body 79 years ago: the US, UK, France, China and the Russian Federation (replacing the USSR of a bygone era).

    The G4 is calling for a total of 11 permanent members (P11): China, France, The Russian Federation, UK and the US, plus six others.

    In the event of possible expansion, and upon the adoption of a comprehensive framework resolution on Security Council reform, interested Member States prepared to assume the functions and responsibilities of permanent members of the Security Council would submit their candidatures in writing to the President of the General Assembly.

    The General Assembly will then proceed, as soon as possible, at a date to be determined by the President, to the election of six new permanent members, by a vote of two thirds of the members of the General Assembly. through a secret ballot. The rules of procedure of the General Assembly will be applied to the election of the new permanent members.

    The criteria of Article 23 (1) should also apply to the election of the new permanent members: “due regard shall be paid, in the first instance to their contributions to the maintenance of international peace and security and to the other purposes of the Organization, and also to equitable geographical distribution”.

    The non-permanent members with a two-year term, currently at 10, will be increased to a total of 14/15 seats – The election process for non-permanent members will follow current practices.

    According to the G4 proposal, the six new permanent members of the Security Council shall be elected according to the following pattern: (i) Two from African Member States: (ii) Two from Asia-Pacific Member States, (iii) One from Latin American and Caribbean Member States; (iv) One from Western European and Other Member States.

    The four/five new non-permanent members of the Security Council shall be elected according to the following pattern; (i) One/Two from African Member States: (ii) One from Asia-Pacific Member States: (iii) One from Eastern European Member States; (iv) One from Latin American and Caribbean Member States.

    Member States should give due consideration during the nomination and election of non-permanent members to adequate and continuing representation of small and medium size Member States, including Small Island Developing States (SIDS).

    Andreas Bummel, Executive Director, Democracy Without Borders, told IPS any reconfiguration of the Security Council would have to be adopted in line with Article 108 of the Charter, which means it requires the support of two thirds of UN members and the P5.

    “Given the fact that Security Council reform has been discussed for decades, I think it is legitimate to pursue such a vote instead of consensus. Whether it is politically wise is a different question.”

    In essence, he said, the G4 are not willing to compromise. “If they can mobilize a two thirds majority and the P5, fine. But if not, it’s finally game over for them. I can’t see how a broad agreement is possible without introducing new concepts that go beyond today’s permanent and non-permanent seats.”

    Re-electable seats rotating among the membership of certain regions is a good approach, in my mind. New permanent seats vested with a veto will make the Security Council even more unworkable.

    This option should be off the table. Delaying a decision for fifteen years does not solve this, he declared.

    On the question of the veto, the G4 says Member States should be invited to continue discussions on the use of the veto in certain circumstances.

    The new permanent members, would as a principle, have the same responsibilities and obligations as current permanent members.

    However, the new permanent members shall not exercise the veto-right until a decision on the matter has been taken during a review, to be held fifteen years after the coming into force of the reform.

    Amendments to the charter shall reflect the fact that the extension of the right of veto to the new permanent members will be decided upon in the framework of a review.

    The enlarged Security Council would be encouraged to, inter alia, hold regular consultations with the President of the General Assembly; submit an analytical and comprehensive evaluation of the Council’s work in the annual report to the General Assembly; submit more frequently special reports to the General Assembly in accordance with Articles 15 (1) and 24 (3) of the Charter, improve participation of the Chair of the Peacebuilding Commission and the chairs of the country-specific configurations of the Commission in relevant debates and, in an appropriate format, in informal discussions

    Asked for her comments, Barbara Adams, Senior Policy Analyst, Global Policy Forum, told IPS: Surely, now 11 (not 5) veto-wielding powers, will not correct the inability of P5 or P11 to put their chartered responsibility for international peace and security above their national security interests.

    She pointed out that the G4 proposal for a 15-year pause on use of the veto acknowledges the tension between expanding the number of permanent members and the veto.

    Re the proposal for seats for developing countries, and countries from other regions, they should not need to be justified by the concept of regional representation, she argued.

    “The privilege of permanency in the Security Council extends beyond the use of veto. The “chill factor” of this privilege reaches into many parts of the UN system in ways formal and informal such as preferential treatment for senior UN positions,” Adams declared.

    Joseph Chamie, a consulting international demographer and a former director of the UN Population Division, told IPS reform of the United Nations Security Council is not a new proposal; it’s been around for decades.

    Despite committees, discussions and calls by many Member States for reform of the Council, he pointed out, little progress has been achieved towards equitable representation, inclusiveness and legitimacy.

    “Increasing numbers of both governments and people consider the Council to be ineffectual and unjust and require reform, including expanding membership and restricting vetoes”.

    While enormous changes have occurred in the world over the past eight decades, he said, the Council continues to have the same five permanent members.

    When established, the five permanent members accounted for about 35 percent of the world’s population. Today, they represent 25 percent and by mid-century they are expected to represent 20 percent of the world’s population, said Chamie, author of numerous publications on population and related issues.

    In brief, the desire for reform of the Security Council is both understandable and reasonable and despite the geo-political challenges, reform should be undertaken without further delays, he declared.

    IPS UN Bureau Report


    Follow IPS News UN Bureau on Instagram

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





    Global Issues

    Source link

  • Poverty and Inequality Mark Rural Life in Latin America

    Poverty and Inequality Mark Rural Life in Latin America


    • by Humberto Marquez (caracas)
    • Inter Press Service

    “Many people in our countryside simply no longer have a way to live, without services or incentives comparable to those in the cities, producing less and for less pay, under the threat of more disease and poverty,” Venezuelan coffee producer Vicente Pérez told IPS.

    In Mexico, whose countryside was home to 24 million of its 127 million inhabitants at the beginning of this decade, according to the World Bank, a study by the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC) showed that eight out of every 10 rural inhabitants lived in poverty, and six in extreme poverty.

    It was in the Mexican capital where experts from ECLAC and the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) proposed this January “a new approach” to the concept of rural life in the region, to help public action to reduce inequality and contribute to the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

    The project’s director, Ramón Padilla, told IPS from Mexico City that “we need a new narrative about rural Latin America that goes beyond the traditional static and dichotomous vision, and that sees rural areas not as backward places, but as territories with great potential for development and connections.”

    Building a new narrative “is important for a better visualization, treatment and reduction of inequalities in income, infrastructure, education, health, gender, etc.,” added Padilla, head of ECLAC’s Economic Development Unit in Mexico.

    “Those who have access to electricity, drinking water, communications and transport to work or school in a big city are at a great distance from life in many depressed rural areas,” said Pérez, executive director of the Venezuelan Confederation of Agricultural Producers (Fedeagro).

    Entrenched rural poverty

    Hilda, the head of her household in Los Rufinos, a village of 40 families in the middle of a sandy dry forest in the northwestern department of Piura, Peru, told visitors from the Argentina-based Latfem regional feminist communication network what it is like to live without electricity and drinking water, to cook with firewood and, among other hardships, to get her granddaughters the schooling she did not have.

    In their dirt-floored houses with fences and walls made of logs, plastic and tin sheeting, the women in Los Rufinos cook in the early hours of the morning for the men of the village who go to work in the agro-exporting fruit plants in Piura, the departmental capital.

    “When there is no moon, the night is really dark, you can’t see a thing. It’s not like in the city, where there is so much light,” Hilda commented to the Latfem representatives.

    In Peru, a country of 33.5 million inhabitants (80 percent urban and 20 percent rural), 9.2 million people are poor, according to the government statistics institute. Poverty measured by income affects 24 percent of the urban population and 41 percent of the rural population, while extreme poverty affects 2.6 percent of the urban population and 16.6 percent of the rural population.

    Farther north, in a rural area of the department of Cundinamarca in central Colombia, Edilsa Alarcón showed on the television program “En los zapatos de” (In the Shoes of), on the Caracol network, how she goes every day to two small fields near her home to milk four cows, her family’s livelihood.

    She carries 18 liters of milk on the back of a donkey every morning, which she sells for 14 dollars, barely enough to live on. She owns no land and her biggest expense is renting pastureland for 860 dollars a year.

    Colombia’s rural areas are home to 12.2 million people (51.8 percent men and 48.2 percent women), 46 percent of whom live in poverty, according to ECLAC.

    “Gente de Guate”, produced by Guatemalan Youtubers , collects and delivers food, household goods and even cash for families in the countryside who barely scrape by in houses with four walls made of corrugated metal sheeting, boards and logs, wood stoves and a few chickens running around among corn and cooking banana plants.

    Of Guatemala’s 17.2 million inhabitants, 60 percent live in poverty and between 15 and 20 percent in extreme poverty, according to figures from official entities and universities. Half of the population lives in rural areas, where poverty affects two thirds of the overall population – and 80 percent of indigenous people – and extreme poverty affects nearly one-third of the total population.

    Regional data

    Some 676 million people live in Latin America and the Caribbean, of whom 183 million are poor (29 percent), and 72 million are in extreme poverty (11.4 percent), according to ECLAC data for 2022 and 2023.

    While 553 million people (81.8 percent) live in towns and cities, 123 million (18.2 percent) live in rural areas. And while in urban areas poverty stands at 26.2 percent and extreme poverty at 9.3 percent, in rural areas 41 percent of the inhabitants are poor and 19.5 percent are extremely poor.

    Gender inequality also persists, stubbornly. One figure that reflects it is that only 30 percent of rural women (58 million) have access to some form of land ownership, their jobs are often more precarious and less well paid, and at the same time they spend more time on household and family care tasks.

    Time to migrate from the countryside

    Latin America has experienced a massive exodus from rural to urban areas in the 20th century and so far in the 21st. “In 1960, less than half of the region’s population lived in cities. By 2016 that proportion had risen to over 80 percent,” wrote Matías Busso, a researcher at the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB).

    This process, driven by the search for better employment opportunities and living conditions, first fueled the expansion of the region’s major cities – to form megalopolises such as São Paulo and Mexico City – and more recently migration to foreign destinations, such as the United States.

    The largest migratory phenomenon abroad that the region has known, the exodus of more than seven million Venezuelans in the last decade, has involved numerous urban and suburban inhabitants, but also people from many rural areas.

    Pérez said that, in addition, in countries like Venezuela there is now a tendency to move from the countryside to urban areas, “but not to the big cities, like Caracas or Maracaibo, but to nearby towns or small cities, maintaining their ties to the plot of land where the family has crops or a few animals.”

    “New shantytowns form in small towns next to agricultural areas, such as coffee plantations in the Andes (southwest) or grain fields in the (central) Llanos, and people work for a few days in some urban job and then return to the countryside at the weekend. A sort of double life,” said Pérez.

    Seeking a new narrative

    New realities such as these prompted the ECLAC-IFAD initiative to “overcome the traditional view that contrasts rural and urban areas, recognizing the existence of different degrees of rurality in the territories and greater interaction between them,” according to its advocates.

    “The project seeks to replace the dominant narrative – which is reductionist and marginalizing – of rural areas as static and backwards, with one that recognizes the challenges and opportunities of today’s new rural societies,” said Peruvian economist Rossana Polastri, regional director of IFAD.

    The basis of the initiative is that between what is defined as rural and urban – the limit in countries such as Mexico is to consider urban areas as those with more than 2,500 inhabitants and rural areas as those below that level – there is a variety, degree and wealth of possibilities and opportunities to address issues of equity and development.

    Padilla from Mexico said that a first element of the work they propose is to collaborate with the public bodies in charge of designing and implementing policies for rural areas, since “technical work, well grounded in concepts and theories, has to go hand in hand with a dialogue with the public sector.”

    “A second element is continuous dialogue with the communities. The new understanding has to be translated into participatory solutions, in which each community and each territory creates a new vision, a renewed plan for sustainable development,” said the head of the project to build a new approach to rural life in Latin America.

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





    Global Issues

    Source link

  • ICJ Orders Israel to Take All Measures to Prevent Genocide in Gaza

    ICJ Orders Israel to Take All Measures to Prevent Genocide in Gaza

    The International Court of Justice orders Israel to “take all measures within its power” to prevent further bloodshed in Gaza in line with Genocide Convention obligations. The Court also calls for the immediate release of all hostages. The order was read by the Judge Joan E Donoghue, President of the Court. Credit: UN
    • by Cecilia Russell (johannesburg)
    • Inter Press Service

    The order with provisional measures was read by Judge Joan E Donoghue, President of the Court, which ordered the State of Israel to adhere to an order to prevent a further deterioration of the humanitarian crisis experienced by the Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip.

    Donoghue told the court that the facts and circumstances were sufficient to conclude that some of the “rights claimed by South Africa and for which it is seeking protection were plausible.

    The ICJ, which is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, delivered its order in the case submitted by South Africa in the case concerning the application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip.

    “The court is not called upon for purposes of its decision on the request for the indication of provisional measures to establish the existence of breaches of obligations under the Genocide Convention, but to determine whether the circumstances require the indication of provisional measures for the protection of rights under that instrument,” she explained.

    Quoting from UN General Assembly Resolution 96 of December 11, 1946, she said genocide shocks “the conscience of mankind.”

    Before going through the list of provisional measures, she quoted high-profile members of the United Nations, including its Secretary General, António Guterres, who warned the Security Council on December 6, 2023, that health care in Gaza was collapsing.

    “Nowhere is safe in Gaza, amid constant bombardment by the Israel Defense Forces and without shelter or the essentials to survive. I expect public order to break to completely break down soon, due to the desperate conditions rendering even limited humanitarian assistance impossible.”

    He then went on to warn that the situation could get worse, “including epidemic diseases and increased pressure for mass displacement into neighboring countries. We are facing a severe risk of the collapse of the humanitarian system. The situation is fast deteriorating into a catastrophe, with potentially irreversible implications for Palestinians as a whole.”

    Donoghue told the court that it considers the rights in question in the proceeding plausible.

    “The court considers that the plausible rights in question in this proceeding, namely, the right of Palestinians in the Gaza Strip to be protected from acts of genocide and related prohibited acts identified in Article Three of the Genocide Convention and the right of South Africa to seek Israel’s compliance with the latter’s obligation under the convention, are of such a nature that prejudiced them and was “capable of causing irreparable harm.”

    She pointed out that the provisional measures didn’t have to match those South Africa requested.

    In terms of the order:

    • Israel must, in accordance with its obligations under the Genocide Convention, take all measures within its power to prevent the commission of all acts within the scope of Article 2 of the Convention, which deals with the destruction of a group in whole or in part. This includes killing groups of members of the group, causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group, and deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part. It was also prevented from imposing measures that were intended to prevent births within the group. Article 2
    • The court further considered that Israel must ensure, with immediate effect, that its military forces do not commit any of the acts designed to destroy a group, and the State of Israel must take measures within its power to prevent and punish the direct and public incitement to commit genocide in relation to the members of the Palestinian group in the Gaza Strip.
    • The court ordered Israel to take immediate and effective measures to enable the provision of urgently needed basic services and humanitarian assistance to address the adverse conditions of life faced by Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.
    • Israel must also take effective measures to prevent the destruction and ensure the preservation of evidence related to allegations of acts within the scope of Articles 2 and 3 of the Genocide Convention against members of the Palestinian group in the Gaza Strip.
    • Israel must submit a report to the court on all measures taken to give effect to the order within one month of the order. “The report so provided shall then be communicated to South Africa.

    “The court reaffirms the decision given in the present proceedings and in no way prejudges the question of the jurisdiction of the court to deal with the merits of the case or any questions related to the admissibility of the application or to the merits themselves.”

    She added that the court was gravely concerned about the fate of the hostages abducted during the attack in Israel on October 7, 2023, and held since then by Hamas and other armed groups, and called for their immediate and unconditional release.


    Follow IPS News UN Bureau on Instagram

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

    Global Issues

    Source link

  • International Court of Justice Set to Deliver Order in Genocide case.

    International Court of Justice Set to Deliver Order in Genocide case.

    The International Court of Justice in the Hague heard the South Africa versus Israel case earlier this month. Credit: ICJ
    • by Cecilia Russell (johannesburg)
    • Inter Press Service

    South Africa argued that the scale of destruction resulting from the bombardment of Gaza and the deliberate restriction of food, water, medicines, and electricity demonstrated that the government of Israel and its military were intent on destroying Palestinians as a group.

    The case was argued on January 10 and 11, 2024, and today’s decision is only likely to deal with jurisdiction and the provisional measures that South Africa asked the court to impose.

    The provisional measures include:

    • that military operations are immediately ceased;
    • that the State of Israel take reasonable measures within its power to prevent genocide, including desisting from actions that could bring about physical destruction;
    • rescind orders of restrictions and prohibitions to prevent forced displacement and ensure access to humanitarian assistance, including access to adequate fuel, shelter, clothes, hygiene, sanitation and medical supplies;
    • avoid public incitement;
    • ensure the preservation of evidence related to allegations of acts and
    • submit a report to the court on all measures taken to give effect to the order.

    South Africa argued that the scale of destruction resulting from the bombardment of Gaza and the deliberate restriction of food, water, medicines, and electricity demonstrated that the government of Israel and its military were intent on destroying Palestinians as a group.

    Israel disputed this, saying that the country had a right to defend itself in the face of the October 7 massacre in Israel. It was argued that South Africa brought a fundamentally flawed case. 

    IPS will update the outcome later today.

    IPS UN Bureau Report


    Follow IPS News UN Bureau on Instagram

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

    Global Issues

    Source link

  • Turning Protracted African Conflicts into Sustainable Peace

    Turning Protracted African Conflicts into Sustainable Peace

    • Opinion by Patrick Devine (nairobi, kenya)
    • Inter Press Service

    Among some African tribes, warriors returning home from fighting are frequently greeted by women singing. And it is reported that some tribes have no name for an enemy tribe in their language; they simply substitute the word enemy.

    These same people could tell you how many of their tribe had been killed by the other tribe, how much capital was stolen, and the exact day each event happened dating back as many as 60 years.

    Such cultural and linguistic practices continually reinforce and perpetuate a lingering notion of otherness and violence. And they underline a key point: Each person involved and affected by conflict can contribute to its resolution and peacebuilding.

    Founded in 2009 in the aftermath of Kenya’s disputed elections of 2007-2008, Shalom-SCCRR is a non-governmental organization created to help mitigate conflicts in eastern Africa. To date, the organization has initiated about 1,000 interventions in Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, and Uganda, among other countries.

    Today, we confront religious ideological radicalization, extremism and conflict in both urban and rural environments and along the entire Kenyan coast. And the only answer to it is to truly empower local people.

    SCCRR is committed to transforming conflict into social development and reconciliation, reflecting a belief that violence is fundamentally based on inadequately met human needs.

    The aim of our team goes beyond the absence of physical violence to a deep-rooted positive peace where all parties are committed to each other’s well-being, uprooting the causes – not just addressing the symptoms – of conflict by creating transformative grassroot networks.

    Trust in SCCRR is fostered in large part by our long term – 5 to 10 year – commitments to building local capacity for negotiation, mediation, and joint problem solving, and by involving community members who can then themselves build their own architectures of peace.

    Our staff have, at minimum, masters level university qualifications. These highly-educated peacebuilding practitioners train local politicians and other key thought leaders – chiefs, elders, religious, education, women’s groups, youth and other community influencers.

    SCCRR’s approach to reconciliation is based on four pillars:

    Ending violence

    • Truth, with each side listening to the other, sharing perceptions on their conflicts
    • Justice, which requires truthful people genuinely open to objective consideration. Sadly, conflict has a very robust, resilient memory, frequently distorted by erroneous historical narratives and mendacious media reporting
    • Mercy: Without which, a negative situation will be entrenched forever in endless cycle

    We also advocate on behalf of communities with governments to develop and upgrade institutions to meet, for example, medical, legal or education needs (particularly interethnic or interfaith schools, and education equality).

    Over the years, SCCRR has successfully trained over 28,000 community leaders in conflict transformation skills, leading to over 600 local community development projects, to the benefit of over 200,000 school aged children and many others.

    While SCCRR can provide bricks and mortar, communities must provide the site, water, and labor, for example. And it is essential to success that a community owns a project themselves.

    In recent times, women have made up 60% of the main beneficiaries of SCCRR interventions.

    Extreme, systemic, inter-ethnic conflict has left countless people killed, injured or displaced, and debilitated many communities in eastern Africa.

    And it is impossible to promote sustained development in places where humanitarian institutions are periodically destroyed or incapacitated. That is why conflict transformation is fundamental to social development and reconciliation.

    Rather than seeking new places to live, communities need practical tools for self-sustainability that empower them to thrive where they are.

    And as the world grapples with a global migration crisis, the success of SCCRR’s work takes on heightened significance, offering helpful insights and a template for action.

    *Rev. Dr. Patrick Devine is International Chairman and Founder of the Shalom Center for Conflict Resolution and Reconciliation (Shalom-SCCRR). In 2013, he received the International Caring Award, whose previous recipients include the Dalai Lama, Bill Clinton, and Mother Teresa.

    IPS UN Bureau


    Follow IPS News UN Bureau on Instagram

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

    Global Issues

    Source link

  • The Impact of Climate Migration on Developing Nations

    The Impact of Climate Migration on Developing Nations

    A family displaced by prolonged drought in Ethiopia now live in a makeshift tent in Mogadishu, Somalia. June 2023. Credit: IOM/Muse Mohammed
    • Opinion by Sudip Ranjan Basu – Chen Wang – Monica Das (bangkok, thailand)
    • Inter Press Service

    Deepening global inequalities are having enormous socio-economic implications across countries. Increasing income and social disparities are spreading around regions. Growing intensities of climate induced natural disasters, the uneven speed of post-pandemic recoveries, and cost-of-living crises from conflicts and geopolitical tensions are exacerbating inequalities and poverty traps globally.

    The changing distribution of economic benefits vis-à-vis the rising prices of food and fuel are causing social unrest and protests. Citizens are voicing their frustration not only in the streets of capitals but through exponential engagement on social media platforms.

    With the intensification of various external shocks, and the lack of economic opportunities for accelerating growth and productivity surges, multidimensional poverty indices are on rise. The inequality-poverty nexus is contributing to a new form of uncertainty for disadvantaged households.

    Intensifying course of climate change

    Intensifying hazards caused by climate change, such as floods, tropical cyclones, heatwaves, droughts and earthquakes, have impacted agricultural outputs and industrial sectors, especially through decreasing productivity growth and falling real wages. The widening gap between rich and poor in rural and urban areas has also been linked to extreme weather events due to the increasing frequency of natural disasters.

    These inequalities are further aggravating extreme poverty, creating the vicious nexus of climate-disaster-inequalities among vulnerable groups.

    Evidence from around the world indicates that climate change is likely to impact more severely on vulnerable groups and coastal communities, because they are more exposed to the uncertainties of weather patterns. Lack of adaptive capacity are often constraining the ability of these communities to build resilience and cope with the severity of these environmental shocks.

    Widespread incidence of climate migration from low- to high-latitude areas and social mobility are increasingly impacting the social fabric of small island developing States and other developing economies.

    With the exodus of young and skilled labour force, transfers of income and the wealth gap will further worsen inequalities in communities, raising concerns of greater socio-economic uncertainties.

    From Fiji to Ethiopia, Bangladesh to Brazil, the exacerbation of inequalities due to climate change has been impacting socio-economic prosperity. Growth uncertainties are causing extreme poverty to increase, while causing hardship and hunger for households in rural areas.

    Varying scales of COVID-19 pandemic

    Socio-economic polarization has been on the rise since the global outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic. Due to differentiated impacts of national lockdowns, pandemic restrictions and vaccination measures have had adverse impacts on the existing inequalities and multidimensional poverty indices.

    As economic development stagnation persists, rural areas have seen rising impacts of extreme poverty and income divergence across households, leading to new episodes of income divergence within countries.

    The post-COVID 19 recoveries are uneven. Rising levels of unemployment and stagnating real wages remain major indicators of corresponding economic growth deceleration. The differentiated policy measures to stabilize labour market distortions, social protection systems and sectoral productivity surges have not always achieved the desired outcomes in developing countries.

    According to the labour force surveys in various countries, the majority of workers have been engaged in less paid work due to lack of dynamism in the labour market. Evidence suggests that the changes in work style and availability of types of jobs as well as their skills and profiles aggravate the income disparity within urban centres.

    From several Latin American to African countries, the pandemic-induced policy measures have differently elevated the risk of vulnerability for the manual labor force. Similarly, the studies have shown that young, low-income and self-employed workers including women with limited education, have suffered greater job losses and earnings reductions than other groups in the workforce in the UK, USA, China and India, among others.

    Changing forms of conflicts

    Conflicts also go beyond borders, causing immeasurable human suffering on the global scale. With the volatility and uncertainties around supply chains, food and fuel prices spiral. Cost-of-living crisis spreads around countries as governments lose fiscal space for developmental expenditure, while debt burden mounts.

    Conflicts cause people to lose hope and opportunities from East to West, North to Southern countries. With the lack of rule of law and property rights, households and communities fall into poverty traps, changing the face of socio-economic disparity.

    As these conflicts are prolonged, countries often fail to overcome the existing structural constraints, maintain production streams, and improve lackluster infrastructure. A higher risk of falling into poverty traps and increasing scale of disparities is then the inevitable outcome. The polarization fears and lack of trust are now a reality.

    Looking ahead

    Today, as we look back at 2023, there is no doubt that in the end, common aspirations and outlooks remain our best hope to chart a new course to advance the Sustainable Development Goals. Evidence of successful policy coherence will provide valuable opportunities for policymakers to unite their priorities and lay the foundations for breakthroughs.

    Sudip Ranjan Basu is Deputy Head and Senior Economic Affairs Officer; Chen Wang is Professor, Institute of Finance and Economics, Shanghai University of Finance and Economics, China; Monica Das is Associate Professor, Economics Department, Skidmore College, New York

    IPS UN Bureau


    Follow IPS News UN Bureau on Instagram

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

    Global Issues

    Source link

  • With Attack on Yemen, the U.S. Is Shameless: We Make the Rules, We Break the Rules

    With Attack on Yemen, the U.S. Is Shameless: We Make the Rules, We Break the Rules

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

    The framing was typical when the New York Times just printed this sentence at the top of the front page: “The United States and a handful of its allies on Thursday carried out military strikes against more than a dozen targets in Yemen controlled by the Iranian-backed Houthi militia, U.S. officials said, in an expansion of the war in the Middle East that the Biden administration had sought to avoid for three months.”

    So, from the outset, the coverage portrayed the U.S.-led attack as a reluctant action — taken after exploring all peaceful options had failed — rather than an aggressive act in violation of international law.

    On Thursday, President Biden issued a statement that sounded righteous enough, saying “these strikes are in direct response to unprecedented Houthi attacks against international maritime vessels in the Red Sea.”

    He did not mention that the Houthi attacks have been in response to Israel’s murderous siege of Gaza. In the words of CNN, they “could be intended to inflict economic pain on Israel’s allies in the hope they will pressure it to cease its bombardment of the enclave.”

    In fact, as Common Dreams reported, Houthi forces “began launching missiles and drones toward Israel and attacking shipping traffic in the Red Sea in response to Israel’s Gaza onslaught.” And as Trita Parsi at the Quincy Institute pointed out, “the Houthis have declared that they will stop” attacking ships in the Red Sea “if Israel stops” its mass killing in Gaza.

    But that would require genuine diplomacy — not the kind of solution that appeals to President Biden or Secretary of State Antony Blinken. The duo has been enmeshed for decades, with lofty rhetoric masking the tacit precept that might makes right. (The approach was implicit midway through 2002, when then-Senator Biden chaired the Senate Foreign Relations Committee’s hearings that promoted support for the U.S. to invade Iraq; at the time, Blinken was the committee’s chief of staff.)

    Now, in charge of the State Department, Blinken is fond of touting the need for a “rules-based international order.” During a 2022 speech in Washington, he proclaimed the necessity “to manage relations between states, to prevent conflict, to uphold the rights of all people.” Two months ago, he declared that G7 nations were united for “a rules-based international order.”

    But for more than three months, Blinken has provided a continuous stream of facile rhetoric to support the ongoing methodical killing of Palestinian civilians in Gaza. Days ago, behind a podium at the U.S. Embassy in Israel, he defended that country despite abundant evidence of genocidal warfare, claiming that “the charge of genocide is meritless.”

    The Houthis are avowedly in solidarity with Palestinian people, while the U.S. government continues to massively arm the Israeli military that is massacring civilians and systematically destroying Gaza.

    Blinken is so immersed in Orwellian messaging that — several weeks into the slaughter — he tweeted that the United States and its G7 partners “stand united in our condemnation of Russia’s war in Ukraine, in support of Israel’s right to defend itself in accordance with international law, and in maintaining a rules-based international order.”

    There’s nothing unusual about extreme doublethink being foisted on the public by the people running U.S. foreign policy. What they perpetrate is a good fit for the description of doublethink in George Orwell’s novel 1984: “To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it . . .”

    After news broke about the attack on Yemen, a number of Democrats and Republicans in the House quickly spoke up against Biden’s end-run around Congress, flagrantly violating the Constitution by going to war on his own say-so.

    Some of the comments were laudably clear, but perhaps none more so than a statement by candidate Joe Biden on Jan. 6, 2020: “A president should never take this nation to war without the informed consent of the American people.”

    Like that disposable platitude, all the Orwellian nonsense coming from the top of the U.S. government about seeking a “rules-based international order” is nothing more than a brazen PR scam.

    The vast quantity of official smoke-blowing now underway cannot hide the reality that the United States government is the most powerful and dangerous outlaw nation in the world.

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

    IPS UN Bureau


    Follow IPS News UN Bureau on Instagram

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

    Global Issues

    Source link

  • South Africa’s Genocide Case Flawed, Premature, Inaccurate, says Israel

    South Africa’s Genocide Case Flawed, Premature, Inaccurate, says Israel

    A view of the International Court of Justice where South Africa has launched a case accusing Israel of genocide in Gaza. Credit: UN Photo/ICJ-CIJ/Frank van Beek. Courtesy of the ICJ.
    • by Cecilia Russell (johannesburg)
    • Inter Press Service

    Israel’s co-agent, Tal Becker, said in his opening address that Jewish people’s experience of the Holocaust meant that it was among “among the first states to ratify the Genocide Convention, without reservation, and to incorporate its provisions in its domestic legislation. For some, the promise of ‘never again for all people’ is a slogan. For Israel, it is the highest moral obligation.”

    He then accused the South African government of bringing a fundamentally flawed case, which would in effect deny the country’s right to defend itself.

    “The applicant has now sought to invoke this term (genocide) in the context of Israel’s conduct in a war it did not start and did not want. A war in which Israel is defending itself against Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and other terrorist organizations whose brutality knows no bounds.”

    Giving details of the Hamas attack on Israel on October 7, 2023, which he said was “the largest calculated mass murder of Jews in a single day since the Holocaust,” he accused South Africa of trying to “weaponize the term genocide against Israel,” delegitimizing the country and its right to defend itself.

    “What proceeded under the cover of thousands of rockets fired indiscriminately into Israel? Was the wholesale massacre, mutilation, rape, and abduction of as many citizens as the terrorists could find before Israel’s forces repelled them openly, displaying elation. They tortured children in front of parents and parents in front of children. Burned people, including infants alive, systematically raped and mutilated scores of women, men, and children. All told, some 1200 people were butchered that day, more than 5500 names, and some 240 hostages abducted, including infants, entire families, persons with disabilities, and Holocaust survivors, some of whom have since been executed, many of whom have been tortured, sexually abused, and stabbed in captivity.”

    Becker said the applicant is essentially asking the court to substitute the “lens of armed conflict between a state and a lawless terrorist organization with the lens of a so-called genocide of a state against a civilian population” and that Israel’s action against Hamas was legitimate defense of the country.

    Professor Malcolm Shaw argued that the applicants right to approach the court was premature as there was no dispute between the countries.

    He argued that Israel had responded to the applicant on December 27, 2023, “in good faith,” and had attempted to hand deliver notes, but the South African Department of International Relations rejected them because it was a public holiday and instructed them to try again on January 2, 2024.

    However, before the notes could be delivered, South Africa launched the court application on December 29, 2023.

    Shaw also said statements relied on by South Africa to show intent to commit genocide were not grounded in the policy frameworks of Israel.

    He argued that the Prime Minister, during ministerial committees, issued directives “time and again” on methods to prevent a humanitarian disaster, which included looking at solutions to ensure a supply of water, food, and medicine and the construction of field hospitals.

    “The remarks or actions of a soldier do not and cannot reflect policy,” Shaw told the court, saying it’s response included statements from, for example, the Minister of Defense on October 29, which made it clear that the country was fighting Hamas and not the people of Gaza, and from the President declaring that the country was operating militarily according to international law.

    These decisions show that Israel lacked “genocidal intent” and said its actions were contrary to the South African argument inherent in the rights of any state to defend itself, which is “embedded in customary international law and enshrined in the UN Charter.”

    Galit Raguan, Director of the International Justice Division, Ministry of Justice of the State of Israel, told the court that it was “astounding that in yesterday’s hearing, Hamas was mentioned only in passing and only in reference to the October 7 massacre in Israel. Listening to the presentation by the applicant, it was as if Israel were operating in Gaza against no armed adversary. But the same Hamas that carried out the October 7 attacks in Israel is the governing authority in Gaza. And the same Hamas has built a military strategy founded on embedding its assets and operatives among the civilian population.”

    She said urban warfare will always result in tragic deaths, harm, and damage.

    Using the example of the blast at al-Ahli Arab Hospital, which was blamed on the Israeli Defense Force (IDF), it was in fact independently confirmed as the result of a failed launch from within Gaza.

    “South Africa does not consider the sheer extent to which Hamas uses ostensibly civilian structures for military purposes. Houses, schools, mosques, facilities, and shelters are all abused for military purposes by Hamas, including as rocket launching sites. Hundreds of kilometers of tunnels dug by Hamas under populated areas in Gaza often cause structures above to collapse,” she told the court.

    Raguan also disputed South Africa’s version of Israel’s efforts to mitigate civilian harm.

    “Here, the applicant tells not just a partial story but a false one. For example, the application presents Israel’s call to civilians to evacuate areas of intensive hostilities ‘as an act calculated to bring about its physical destruction.’ This is a particularly egregious allegation that is completely disconnected from the governing legal framework of international humanitarian law.”

    Instead of 24 hours, as South Africa alleges, “the IDF urged civilians to evacuate to southern Gaza for over three weeks before it started its ground operation. Three weeks that provided Hamas with advanced knowledge of where and when the IDF would be operating.”

    Raguan asked the court: “Would Israel work continuously with international organizations and states, even reaching out to them on its own initiative, to find solutions to these challenges if it were seeking to destroy the population? Israel’s efforts to mitigate the ravages of this war on civilians are the very opposite of the intent to destroy them.”

    Dr Omri Sender elaborated on the humanitarian efforts, saying that more aid was reaching Gaza than before the war.

    “The accurate average number for trucks specifically carrying food is 70 trucks a day before the war and 109 trucks a day over the last two weeks… Access to water has also been a priority. As with food supplies, there is no restriction on the amount of water that may enter Gaza. Israel continues to supply its own water to Gaza through two pipelines.”

    Christopher Staker, a British barrister representing Israel, questioned whether “provisional measures require a state to refrain from exercising a plausible right to defend itself.”

    The court, he argued, needed to take into account that Hamas was considered a terrorist organization by Israel and other countries, and secondly, it committed a large-scale terrorist attack on Israeli territory, so the country had a right to defend itself. The country was also taking steps to alleviate the humanitarian situation.

    Staker also argued that the provisional measures would not constrain Hamas.

    “This would deprive Israel of the ability to contend with this security threat against it. More rockets could be fired into its territory, more of its citizens could be taken hostage, raped, and tortured, and further atrocities could be conducted from across the Gaza border.”

    The court’s president, Judge Joan Donoghue, closed proceedings and said the decision of the court would be communicated as soon as possible.

    IPS UN Bureau Report


    Follow IPS News UN Bureau on Instagram

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

    Global Issues

    Source link