Africa - INTER PRESS SERVICE

President John Dramani Mahama of Ghana addressing the UN General Assembly last September. Credit: UN Photo

By Kester Kenn Klomegah
MOSCOW, Jan 8 2026 (IPS)

Squeezed between import substitution and dependency syndrome, a condition characterized by a set of associated economic symptoms—that is rules and regulations—majority of African countries are shifting from United States and Europe to an incoherent alternative bilateral partnerships with Russia, China and the Global South.

By forging new partnerships, for instance with Russia, these African countries rather create conspicuous economic dependency at the expense of strengthening their own local production, attainable by supporting local farmers under state budget. Import-centric partnership ties and lack of diversification make these African countries committed to import-dependent structures. It invariably compounds domestic production challenges. Needless to say that Africa has huge arable land and human resources to ensure food security.

A classical example that readily comes to mind is Ghana, and other West African countries. With rapidly accelerating economic policy, Ghana’s President John Dramani Mahama ordered the suspension of U.S. chicken and agricultural products, reaffirming swift measures for transforming local agriculture considered as grounds for ensuring sustainable food security and economic growth and, simultaneously, for driving job creation.

President Mahama, in early December 2025, while observing Agricultural Day, urged Ghanaians to take up farming, highlighting the guarantee and state support needed for affordable credit and modern tools to boost food security. According to Mahama, Ghana spends $3bn yearly on basic food imports from abroad.

The government decision highlights the importance of leveraging unto local agriculture technology and innovation. Creating opportunities to unlock the full potential of depending on available resources within the new transformative policy strategy which aims at boosting local productivity. President Mahama’s special initiatives are the 24-Hour Economy and the Big Push Agenda. One of the pillars focuses on Grow 24 – modernising agriculture.

Despite remarkable commendations for new set of economic recovery, Ghana’s demand for agricultural products is still high, and this time making a smooth shift to Russia whose poultry meat and wheat currently became the main driver of exports to African countries. And Ghana, noticeably, accepts large quantity (tonnes) of poultry from Russia’s Rostov region into the country, according to several media reports. The supplies include grains, but also vegetable oils, meat and dairy products, fish and finished food products have significant potential for Africa.

The Agriculture Ministry’s Agroexport Department acknowledges Russia exports chicken to Ghana, with Ghanaian importers sourcing Russian poultry products, especially frozen cuts, to meet significant local demand that far outstrips domestic production, even after Ghana lifted a temporary 2020 avian flu-related ban on Russian poultry.

Moreover, monitoring and basic research indicated Russian producers are actively increasing poultry exports to various African countries, thus boosting trade, although Ghana still struggles to balance imports with local industry needs.

A few details indicate the following:

* Trade Resumed: Ghana has lifted its ban on Russian poultry imports since April 2021, allowing poultry trade to resume. Russian regions hve, thus far, consistently exported these poultry meat and products into the country under regulatory but flexible import rules on a negotiated bilateral agreement.

* Significant Market: In any case, Ghana is a key African market for Russian poultry, with exports seeing substantial growth in recent years, alongside Angola, Benin, Cote d’Voire, Nigeria and Sierra Leone.

* Demand-Driven: Ghana’s large gap between domestic poultry production and national demand necessitates significant imports, creating opportunities for foreign suppliers like Russia.

* Major Exporters: Russia poultry companies are focused on increasing generally their African exports, with Ghana being a major destination. The basic question: to remain as import dependency or strive at attaining food sufficiency?

* Product Focus: Exports typically include frozen chicken cuts (legs and meat) very vital for supplementing local supply. But as the geopolitical dynamics shift, Ghana and other importing African countries have to review partnerships, particularly with Russia.

Despite the fact that challenges persist, Russia strongly remains as a notable supplier to Ghana, even under the supervision of John Mahama’s administration, dealing as a friendly ally, both have the vision for multipolar trade architecture, ultimately fulfilling a critical role in meeting majority of African countries’ large consumer demand for poultry products, and with Russia’s trade actively expanding and Ghana’s preparedness to spend on such imports from the state budget.

Following two high-profile Russia–Africa summits, cooperation in the area of food security emerged as a key theme. Moscow pledged to boost agricultural exports to the continent—especially grain, poultry, and fertilisers—while African leaders welcomed the prospect of improved food supplies.

Nevertheless, do these African governments think of prioritising agricultural self-sufficiency. At a May 2025 meeting in St. Petersburg, Russia’s Economic Development Minister, Maxim Reshetnikov, underlined the fact that more than 40 Russian companies were keen to export animal products and agricultural goods to the African region.

Russia, eager to expand its economic footprint, sees large-scale agricultural exports as a key revenue generator. Estimates suggest the Russian government could earn over $15 billion annually from these agricultural exports to African continent.

Head of the Agroexport Federal Center, Ilya Ilyushin, speaking at the round table “Russia-Africa: A Strategic Partnership in Agriculture to Ensure Food Security,” which was held as part of the international conference on ensuring the food sovereignty of African countries in Addis Ababa (Ethiopia) on Nov. 21, 2025, said: “We see significant potential in expanding supplies of Russian agricultural products to Africa.”

It mentioned that the Agriculture Ministry’s Agroexport Department, and the Union of Grain Exporters and Producers, exported over 32,000 tonnes of wheat and barley to Egypt totaling nearly $8 million during the first half of 2025, Kenya totaling over $119 million.

Interfax media reports referred to African countries whose markets are of interest for Russian producers and exporters. Despite existing difficulties, supplies of livestock products are also growing, this includes poultry meat, Ilyushin said. Exports of agricultural products from Russia to African countries have more than doubled, and third quarter of 2025 reached almost $7 billion.

The key buyers of Russian grain on the continent are Egypt, Algeria, Kenya, Libya, Tunisia, Nigeria, Morocco, South Africa, Tanzania and Sudan, he said. According to him, Russia needs to expand the geography of supplies, increasing exports to other regions of the continent, increase supplies in West Africa to Benin, Cameroon, Ghana, Liberia and the French-speaking Sahelian States.

Of course, Russian exporters have nothing to complain. Africa’s dependency dilemma still persists. Therefore, Russia to continue expanding food exports to Africa explicitly reflects a calculated economic and geopolitical strategy. In the end of the analysis, the debate plays out prominently and also the primary message: Africa cannot afford to sacrifice food sovereignty for geopolitical solidarity.

With the above analysis, Russian exporters show readiness to explore and shape actionable strategies for harnessing Africa’s consumer market, including that of Ghana, and further to strengthen economic and trade cooperation and support its dynamic vision for sustainable development in the context of multipolar friendship and solidarity.

Kester Kenn Klomegah focuses on current geopolitical changes, foreign relations and economic development-related questions in Africa with external countries. Most of his well-resourced articles are reprinted in several reputable foreign media.

IPS UN Bureau

 

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

Activists at a My body, My choice protest. Credit: Voicepk.net

By Zofeen Ebrahim
KARACHI, Pakistan, Jan 8 2026 (IPS)

As 2026 dawns, women in Pakistan are left grappling with a stark reality: rape and marital rape continue to be misinterpreted by judges in the country’s highest courts.

Earlier this month, Pakistan’s Supreme Court set aside a rape conviction, changing it to fornication (consensual sex out of marriage) – reducing a 20-year sentence to five years and slashing the fine from 500,000 rupees to 10,000 rupees, sparking fresh calls for better protections for Pakistani women.

“Such judgments do not give confidence to women to come out and report sexual violence perpetrated on them,” said Ayesha Farooq, chairperson of the government-notified Committee of the Anti-Rape Investigation and Trial Act, formed in 2021.

Despite protective legislation, 70 percent of gender-based violence incidents go unreported. Of those reported, the national conviction rate stands at just 5 percent, with some categories as low as 0.5 percent and domestic violence convictions at 1.3 percent.

Senator Sherry Rehman highlighted the stark figures: in 2024, Islamabad had seven convictions out of 176 rape cases, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa one out of 258, Sindh none from 243 rape cases and Balochistan reported 21 rapes with no convictions.

Nida Aly, Executive Director of AGHS, said, “I have never felt so disappointed in our judiciary. Judges have failed as a gender-competent forum and lost credibility.”

The Supreme Court case involved a survivor who, in 2015, was raped at gunpoint while relieving herself in the woods. She reported the incident seven months later; DNA tests confirmed the accused as the father of her child. The trial court convicted him, and the Lahore High Court upheld the verdict. Yet at the Supreme Court, two of three judges reclassified the act as fornication, citing the complainant’s silence, lack of resistance, and absence of physical marks. Section 496-B of the Penal Code prescribes five years’ imprisonment and a Rs10,000 fine for fornication.

This reasoning drew sharp criticism from the National Commission on the Status of Women, which said consent cannot be inferred from silence, delayed reporting, or lack of resistance, and urged courts to recognise the realities of trauma, fear, coercion, and power imbalances in sexual violence cases.

Ironically, after the recasting of the case, the woman was exempted from punishment.

She was reminded of another case of rape in 2024, where a woman accused her brother’s friend of rape.

“The same judge converted the conviction of rape into fornication – along with arguments like “the woman showed no resistance; there were no marks of violence” and there was a two-day delay in reporting to the police.

Justice Ayesha Malik’s dissenting note arguing there was no “standardised” rulebook response by the victim emphasised consent.

Jamshed M. Kazi, Country Representative, UN Women Pakistan, said such cases resonate far beyond the courtroom. “The language used and the conclusions reached shape not only legal precedent but also social attitudes, survivor confidence, and public trust in justice.”

He added, “For survivors of sexual violence, judgements can leave lasting marks on the lives of women and girls, affecting how their experiences are believed and remembered, and may discourage reporting, reinforcing silence, fear, or self-doubt among survivors.”

Another case saw the Lahore High Court dismiss rape complaints against a husband because he was still legally married, even though he raped the woman at gunpoint. The judge, while maintaining the conduct of the man to be “immoral” and “inappropriate under religious or social norms”, said it was not a crime since the marriage continued to exist legally at the time of the incident.

“The judge focused on the validity of the marriage and completely disregarded the woman’s claim of non-consent and being subjected to forced sex at gunpoint,” pointed out Aly.

While there is no explicit provision criminalising marital rape, the Protection of Women (Criminal Law Amendment) Act, 2006 removed marriage as a defence to rape. When the definition of rape was substantially revised under the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2021, no marital exemption was reintroduced.

Between 1979 and 2006, Maliha Zia, Director, Gender, Inclusion & Development at the Karachi-based Legal Aid Society, explained, marriage operated as a defence to rape because the law defined rape as sexual intercourse by a man with a woman “who is not his wife” under specified circumstances. The deliberate removal of the words “not his wife” in 2006 therefore eliminated marriage as a defence, a position that has remained unchanged since.

“The 2006 Protection of Women Act was an important step; it corrected major injustices by separating rape from zina (unlawful sexual intercourse – including adultery and fornication),” said Dr Sharmila Faruqui, a member of the National Assembly.  “But it stopped short of clearly saying that lack of consent within marriage is also rape and that silence has allowed old assumptions to survive.”

Faruqui stressed the need for judicial sensitisation, particularly at senior levels, but noted that judges are ultimately bound by the law. “When the law is unclear, even well-intentioned interpretations can go wrong,” she said. She called for legislative clarity—through a penal code amendment or another carefully considered route—emphasising that consent, grounded in dignity and equality, must remain central regardless of marital status. “Marriage was never meant to be a license for violence.”

This was endorsed by Zia, who has been among the trainers of judges who hear GBV cases. “Much work needs to be done to constantly sensitise the justice sector on women’s experiences and the trauma they go through due to sexual violence. “Many work on the assumption that the woman is most likely lying, especially if she didn’t fight or run or report straight away,” she added.

To its credit, Pakistan, under the anti-rape act of 2021 special courts were notified to look into gender-based violence cases. To date there are 174 such courts. Unfortunately, these courts are not exclusively handling GBV cases, said Zia. But even with this limitation, rape case convictions in Sindh rose to 17 percent in 2025, from 5 percent in 2020, when such courts did not exist. “Imagine how much better it could be!” According to her, in districts where there is a high caseload of GBV, courts should be exclusive, not necessarily more.

IPS UN Bureau Report

 

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

Despite impressive global declines in mortality rates, life expectancies at birth vary significantly among countries. Credit: Shutterstock

By Joseph Chamie
PORTLAND, USA, Jan 7 2026 (IPS)

While death is inevitable for everyone, the timing of “The Appointment in Samarra” varies significantly among and within populations. Fortunately, mortality levels of human populations have declined significantly worldwide in recent years, leading to increased survival rates and delayed appointments in Samarra.

For example, in the mid-20th century, life expectancies at birth for males and females were 45 and 48 years, respectively. Today, males and females have life expectancies at birth of 71 and 76 years, respectively, which is an increase of more than 25 years. Additionally, females generally have higher life expectancies than males across countries (Figure 1).

 

Source: United Nations.

 

Despite impressive global declines in mortality rates, life expectancies at birth vary significantly among countries. Currently, life expectancies at birth for males and females range from highs of about 82 and 87 years, respectively, in Japan and Italy, to lows of approximately 55 and 57 years, respectively, in Nigeria and the Central African Republic.

Inequities in life expectancies at birth persist across different age groups. For example, by the age of 65, country differences in life expectancy remain substantial. In Japan and Italy, life expectancies for males and females at age 65 are approximately 20 and 24 years, respectively. In contrast, the life expectancies for males and females at age 65 in Nigeria and the Central African Republic are about 12 and 13 years, respectively.

Similarly, infant mortality rates vary greatly among countries around the world. The mortality rates of infants range from lows of approximately 2 deaths per 1,000 births in Japan and Italy to highs over 30 times greater, with about 68 deaths per 1,000 births in Nigeria and the Central African Republic.

Longer life expectancies for the world’s population have also led to an increase in the number of centenarians.

In 1950, there were nearly 15,000 centenarians worldwide, making up 0.001% of the global population. Today, there are approximately 630,000 centenarians, accounting for close to 0.01% of the world’s population. By 2050, the number of centenarians is projected to reach 2.6 million, representing around 0.03% of the world’s population (Figure 2).

 

Source: United Nations.

 

There are many important factors that influence when and how the appointment in Samarra will occur. These factors include place of birth, residence, sex, socio-economic status, housing, healthcare, nutrition, diet, education, friends, exercise, genetics, disease prevalence, economic stability, public health, injuries, mental health, environmental conditions, political stability, human rights, social support, sanitation, substance use, lifestyle choices, parenting, personal habits, poverty, and violence (Table 1).

 

 

Declines in fertility rates have followed mortality rate declines, commonly described as the demographic transition. The fertility rate of the world’s population has fallen from a high of about 5.3 births per woman in the early 1960s to 2.2 births per woman today.

More than half of all countries and areas worldwide have a fertility rate below the replacement level of 2.1 births per woman. In many of these countries, deaths outnumber births, resulting in negative rates of population growth.

For example, in China, deaths began outnumbering births about five years ago. This trend is expected to continue for the rest of the 21st century, leading to population decline and the demographic ageing of the Chinese population.

The timing and circumstances of appointments in Samarra differ among the populations of more developed and less developed countries. People in the latter group are more likely to die from communicable diseases than from noncommunicable diseases, which are chronic conditions typically associated with older, aging populations and lifestyle factors.

Among more developed countries, major causes of death include heart disease, cancer, stroke, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and lower respiratory infections. Other leading causes are Alzheimer’s and other dementia, tuberculosis, diarrheal diseases, HIV/AIDS, and external causes and injuries.

Currently, life expectancies at birth for males and females range from highs of about 82 and 87 years, respectively, in Japan and Italy, to lows of approximately 55 and 57 years, respectively, in Nigeria and the Central African Republic

Additionally, in many countries, cancer has replaced heart disease as the leading cause of death. The most common cancers are breast, lung, colon, rectum, and prostate cancer.

Approximately a third of cancer deaths are due to tobacco use, high body mass index, alcohol consumption, low fruit and vegetable intake, and lack of physical activity. Air pollution is also an important risk factor for lung cancer. Many cancers can be cured if detected early and treated effectively.

In many less developed countries, major causes of death include lower respiratory diseases, stroke, heart disease, malaria, and pre-term birth conditions. Other important causes include diarrheal diseases, tuberculosis, birth trauma, and HIV/AIDS.

Another major cause of death in recent years has been the coronavirus or COVID-19. The World Health Organization declared it a global pandemic on 11 March 2020, and it ended in May 2023, but remains an ongoing health threat. The pandemic resulted in over 7 million officially reported deaths worldwide, but the estimated excess morality is significantly higher, ranging between 18 and 35 million.

A crucial factor influencing the timing of appointments in Samarra is the availability of universal health coverage. According to the World Health Organization, universal health coverage ensures that every individual in a country has access to a wide range of health services, from emergency treatments to palliative care, without facing financial difficulties.

As of 2024, 73 out of the 195 countries worldwide were reported to offer some form of universal health coverage, which covers around two-thirds of the global population of 8.2 billion.

Among more developed nations, the United States stands out as a notable exception for not providing universal health care to all its citizens. In 2024, private health insurance coverage remained more prevalent than public coverage, with 66% of the U.S. population being covered. Additionally, the U.S. was noted for having the highest healthcare spending figure per capita in the world.

A significant debate surrounding the appointments in Samarra revolves around the right to die or medically assisted suicide. The differing perspectives about assisted suicide focus on the balance between individual autonomy and the sanctity of life.

Some believe that individuals experiencing unbearable suffering, often due to a terminal illness or incurable condition, should have the legal right and control to decide on medically assisted suicide or voluntary euthanasia. In contrast, others argue that assisted suicide devalues human life and opens the door to potential abuse. They also emphasize the importance of palliative care for those facing illness or personal struggles.

Medically assisted suicide is legal under specific circumstances in a limited number of countries. Those places include Australia, Austria. Belgium, Canada, Colombia, Ecuador, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Spain, Switzerland, and twelve states in the United States.

In order to be eligible for medical assistance in dying, an individual typically must meet certain criteria. These criteria may include having a terminal illness or disability, being of sound mind, expressing a voluntary desire to die, and being capable of self-administering the lethal dose.

While the appointment in Samarra is inevitable for every human being, the timing of when this appointment will occur remains a topic of debate among the scientific community.

Some believe that there is a fixed limit to human life span, largely attributed to the gradual processes of biological ageing. They stress the implausibility of radical life extension for humans in the 21st century.

On the other hand, some argue that there is no conclusive evidence that the limit of human life span has been reached. The oldest supercentenarian on record, Jeanne Calment of France, lived to be 122 years and 164 days. Some experts predict that this current record of 122 years will be surpassed by the end of the 21st century, possibly even reaching 130 years.

In conclusion, the mortality rates of human populations have decreased globally in recent years, leading to improved chances of survival, longer life expectancies, and a growing number of centenarians. However, the timing and circumstances of the inevitable appointment in Samarra vary, with populations in more developed countries continuing to experience lower death rates and longer life expectancies compared to populations in less developed countries.

Joseph Chamie is a consulting demographer, a former director of the United Nations Population Division, and author of many publications on population matters.

Girl at computer. Credit: UNFPA Central African Republic/Karel Prinsloo
 
A bold action by governments, tech companies, and all communities is needed to confront the rising tech-facilitated GBV that is silencing women’s voices and threatening hard-won gains in Africa.

By Sennen Hounton and Lydia Zigomo
UNITED NATIONS, Jan 7 2026 (IPS)

New estimates show that violence against women and girls remains one of the most pervasive human rights violations in the world – and that one of its fastest-growing frontiers is the digital space.

Technology-facilitated gender-based violence includes online harassment, cyberstalking, image-based abuse, deepfake exploitation and coordinated digital attacks, and all of these are proliferating.

Anonymous accounts, weak reporting systems, and limited legal consequences have enabled perpetrators to weaponize technology to shame, silence, and violate women and girls at unprecedented scale and speed.

Africa is no exception.

Across the continent, disturbing patterns are emerging: Girls are facing cyberbullying and sextortion. Women leaders and human rights defenders are disproportionately targeted through coordinated online abuse designed to intimidate them out of public life.

During elections, women in public roles report harassment, smear campaigns and doxxing – tactics meant to silence civic participation.

In humanitarian settings – from the Sahel to the Lake Chad Basin to Sudan and the Democratic Republic of the Congo – displaced women and girls rely on digital tools to stay connected and access essential services.

Yet these same tools expose them to surveillance, extortion, blackmail and exploitation.

In conflict contexts, online threats have escalated into offline consequences – including intimidation, detention and physical violence.

Despite the scale of the problem, most cases remain invisible because technology companies, justice systems and communities have not kept pace. Reporting mechanisms are often ineffective.

Digital safety is rarely taught in schools or homes. Survivors face retaliation and victim-blaming. Perpetrators, and the platforms that enable them, are almost never held accountable.

The consequences are severe. Technology-facilitated violence impacts mental health, restricts mobility, destroys livelihoods and erodes confidence. “This virtual world can have real emotional impacts. It’s not enough to say ignore it or log off,” a 24-year-old woman in Chad told UNFPA.

Other young women in Africa also describe witnessing or experiencing harms with real-world impacts: “My page was hacked, I was forced to do things against my will,” a 31-year-old woman from Liberia said.

“Someone had published naked photos and videos of me in our local village Facebook group,” a young woman in Kenya shared. “I gathered the courage and went to a police station to report the incident. The officers I spoke to first admonished me and told me that this was not a criminal case, but rather a case of indecent behaviour on my part.”

In aggregate, these harms are reshaping the digital public sphere in ways that exclude women and girls.

When girls abandon online learning for fear their images may be misused, or when women delete their accounts to escape harassment, societies lose leadership, innovation and the voices essential to progress.

Gender equality cannot advance when half the population is pushed out of digital spaces.

That is why UNFPA and partners convened the first-ever Africa Symposium on Technology-facilitated Gender-based Violence in November, convening leaders in digital rights and gender-based violence prevention and response. It is time to build alliances and explore solutions. Africa is home to multiple hubs of technological innovation, and to the world’s youngest population.

As the digital divide slowly closes, we must ensure that the technology being adopted is safe, private and secure, and does not reinforce or amplify existing gender and social inequalities.

Symposium attendees recognized the need for a bold, coordinated response, one that follows the same principles that guide all efforts to end gender-based violence: dignity, consent, confidentiality, privacy, and survivor-centered care.

We must create a world where “African innovators lead the way in designing digital ecosystems that are safe, ecosystems that are inclusive and empowering for all, and in particular for women and marginalized communities,” said Judy Karioko, from the International Research & Exchanges Board (IREX) in Kenya, at one of the Symposium’s sessions.

UNFPA is committed to making every space – physical or digital – safe for women and girls in all their diversity. Through the Making All Spaces Safe programme, supported by Global Affairs Canada, concrete action is being taken across Africa, including Benin, Ghana, Kenya and Tunisia, to integrate technology risks into efforts to end gender-based violence.

But no single institution can end digital violence alone. Governments, tech companies, educators, civil society, faith leaders, families – and every digital citizen – share responsibility.

The world’s future begins with Africa. As a region, and as a global community, we cannot wait. Because if we fail to make the online world safe, we fail to protect the future of girls, and the world growing up in the digital age.

Dr. Sennen Hounton is the UNFPA Regional Director for West and Central Africa, while Ms. Lydia Zigomo is the UNFPA Regional Director for East and Southern Africa

Source: Africa Renewal, United Nations

IPS UN Bureau

 

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

The maternity ward at Kharkiv City Multifunctional Hospital No.25. Credit: UNFPA/Ukraine

By Ed Holt
BRATISLAVA, Jan 7 2026 (IPS)

“It was an emergency caesarean section when the life of the pregnant woman was at risk. We did the operation with just flashlights and no water, and against a backdrop of constant explosions,” says Dr Oleksandr Zhelezniakov, Director of the Obstetrics Department at Kharkiv Regional Clinical Hospital, in eastern Ukraine.

He is recalling what he says was “one of the most difficult” medical procedures he has been involved in since the start of Russia’s full-scale invasion of his country.

But it was far from the only time he has had to work in extreme conditions while his city is pounded by Russian shelling. In fact, he says, it has become routine for him and his colleagues.

“The current reality is that, given we are in a frontline city, we work like this almost every day, because the alarms never stop and we hear explosions almost every day,” he tells IPS.

“You just do what you have to do to save a life, to save the future. In such moments, you only think about saving a life. We work [in these conditions] because life must always prevail,” he says.

Staff look at the beginnings of construction of a bunkerised facility at Kharkiv City Multifunctional Hospital No. 25. Credit: UNFPA/Ukraine

Zhelezniakov’s hospital has, like many other medical facilities in Ukraine, been repeatedly attacked and damaged since the start of the war. The World Health Organisation (WHO) had documented more than 2,700 attacks on Ukrainian healthcare facilities since February 24, 2024.

These have included attacks on more than 80 maternal healthcare facilities – with devastating consequences for maternal health, as recently released data has shown.

According to analysis by the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) released in December, there has been a sharp rise in the risk of dying in pregnancy or childbirth in Ukraine as the conflict grinds on.

The agency says repeated strikes on hospitals and the breakdown of essential services are forcing women to give birth in increasingly dangerous conditions, and health workers have warned that a combination of violence, chronic stress, displacement and widespread disruption of maternity care is driving a surge in pregnancy complications and preventable deaths.

Its analysis of national data shows a 37-percent increase in the maternal mortality rate from 2023 to 2024 – the most recent full year of national data available. In 2023, Ukraine recorded 18.9 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births. In 2024, that figure rose to 25.9. The organisation says most of these are preventable deaths, reflecting a health system operating under extreme strain.

It said it had also seen sharp increases in severe pregnancy and childbirth complications. Uterine ruptures — among the most dangerous obstetric emergencies — have risen by 44 per cent. Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy have increased by more than 12 per cent, while severe postpartum haemorrhage has risen by nearly 9 per cent – from 2023 to 2024. Delays in accessing care, stress, displacement and disrupted referral pathways are key contributing factors.

Meanwhile, the situation in frontline regions is particularly acute. In Kherson, premature births are almost double the national average, and the region has the highest stillbirth rate in the country, according to UNFPA.

It cites contributing factors including stress, insecurity and difficulties in accessing care, which can lead to preterm labour and premature rupture of membranes.

Another indicator of system strain is the Caesarean section rate. Nationally, the rate now exceeds 28 per cent, already above recommended levels. In frontline regions, the figures are among the highest in Europe: 46 per cent in Kherson and approximately 32 per cent in Odesa, Zaporizhzhia and Kharkiv. These high rates often reflect the need for doctors and women to time deliveries around short windows of relative safety and can additionally show an increased pregnancy complication rate that requires surgical intervention, according to UNFPA officials.

“Attacks [on healthcare, including maternity and neonatal facilities] have had measurable and severe consequences for maternal health. Ukraine is entering another winter under conditions that sharply increase risks for pregnant women, newborns and the health workers who care for them,” Isaac Hurskin, Head of Communications, UNFPA in Ukraine, told IPS.

In early December, a maternity hospital in Kherson, a facility supported by UNFPA, was struck by artillery fire. During the strike, hospital staff moved women in labour and newborns into a bunkered maternity ward—one of many such facilities constructed by the government with help from groups like UNFPA to protect mothers and babies during active hostilities.

While everyone survived the attack and a baby girl was born in the bunker during the shelling, Hurskin said it was “a stark illustration of the conditions under which pregnancy and childbirth are now taking place — conditions no woman or health worker should ever have to face”.

But the devastation wrought by the war in Ukraine is also impacting wider reproductive health.

IPS has spoken to women in Ukraine who have admitted they are avoiding getting pregnant because of concerns about their ability to access maternal healthcare safely but also the conditions in which they may have to raise an infant.

“Women in conflict-affected areas have specific reproductive needs. It is very hard to meet them when a maternity hospital gets bombed on a regular basis, or when energy infrastructure is targeted, limiting the functionality of hospitals and forcing pregnant women to unequipped hospital shelters. A woman considering getting pregnant needs to make a decision based on these factors – whether a hospital is safe, whether she can have access to services, and whether she is able to care for the child afterwards, with no electricity, heating, or water at home,” Uliana Poltavets, International Advocacy and Ukraine Program Coordinator at Physicians for Human Rights (PHR), told IPS.

“This is a trend which is being observed,” added Zhelezniakov. “Women fear not only for their lives and the lives of their unborn children during childbirth under shelling but also an uncertain future—a lack of safe housing, work, and normal conditions for raising a child. This is a rational fear in the irrational conditions of war. It is one of the reasons for the sharp decline in the birth rate.”

But he added that conversely, the effects of the war were impacting women’s ability to conceive.

“Chronic stress, high cortisol levels, anxiety, and sleep disorders directly affect hormonal balance and reproductive function. Constant stress also leads to hormonal imbalances (dysfunction of the hypothalamic-pituitary-ovarian axis). This causes an increase in cases of secondary infertility, premature ovarian failure, and endometriosis. We are already seeing an increase in the number of pathological menopauses in young women,” he said.

These threats to fertility and maternal health come at a time when Ukraine is facing a demographic crisis.

According to UNFPA, since 2014, when Russia illegally annexed Crimea and supported separatist paramilitary movements in eastern Ukraine, the country has lost an estimated 10 million people through displacement, mortality and outward migration. Fertility has fallen to below one child per woman — one of the lowest rates globally.

It says that rising maternal deaths, increasing complications and pervasive uncertainty about the safety of childbirth reinforce one another, with long-term consequences for families, communities and national recovery.

“This is not only a humanitarian emergency. It is a demographic crisis with implications that will extend far beyond the end of hostilities. Protecting maternal health is central to Ukraine’s long-term recovery and future stability,” said Hurskin.

Indeed, examples from other recent conflicts where there has been widescale destruction of healthcare have shown the long-term effects of war on maternal and reproductive healthcare long after they have finished, from problems with rebuilding damaged and destroyed facilities, ongoing displacement, and continued shortages of medical staff just some of the barriers to women being able to access services.

“Look at Syria, for example. The healthcare system is being built back up, there is rebuilding of facilities, things are improving, but it will take decades to get back to where it was before. And maternal healthcare tends to be deprioritised both during and after a conflict – resources tend to go to other areas such as emergency and trauma care. Women in Syria will have problems with accessing maternal healthcare for years and years to come,” an expert on healthcare in war zones working for an international human rights group, who spoke on condition of anonymity for security reasons, told IPS.

Zhelezniakov admits that a worsening of the demographic crisis in Ukraine is inevitable.

“The expectation is that it will get worse. The destruction of the maternal health care system only exacerbates existing problems caused by the war: the migration of women and children abroad, loss of life, economic instability, and psychological pressure,” he says.

But he adds that even now measures can be taken to improve maternal healthcare, including strengthening primary care, improving digitalisation (e-health systems), investment in prevention, mental health support programmes, environmental improvement, legislative regulation, and raising awareness of reproductive health to reduce mortality and disability, among others.

Developing international cooperation by creating “medical hubs” in relatively safe regions with the support of international partners, such as UNFPA and WHO, to ensure services, would also help.

“Even during active hostilities, we can and must work to adapt the system,” he says.

He also vows that, no matter what happens, he and other medical staff will not stop their work, recalling the emergency caesarean section performed by flashlight as shells rained down on Kharkiv.

“The birth of a child in such conditions is always a miracle and a powerful motivator to continue working, despite everything,” he says.

IPS UN Bureau Report

 

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

A man walks past a campaign poster for the military’s proxy party USDP ahead of strictly controlled elections in Myanmar. Credit: Guy Dinmore/IPS

By Guy Dinmore
YANGON, Myanmar and BANGKOK , Jan 6 2026 (IPS)

With thousands of civilians killed in years of civil war and over 22,000 political prisoners still behind bars, no one was surprised that early results from Myanmar’s first but tightly controlled elections since the 2021 coup show the military’s proxy party speeding to victory.

“How can you hold elections and bomb civilians at the same time?” asked Khin Ohmar, a civil rights activist outside Myanmar who is monitoring what the resistance forces and a shadow government reject as “sham” polls.

The junta had already cleared the path towards its stated goal of a “genuine, disciplined multi-party democratic system” by dissolving some 40 parties that refused to register for polls, which they regard as illegitimate, with their leaders and supporters still in prison.

These include the National League for Democracy (NLD) and its leader, Aung San Suu Kyi, who won a landslide second term  in the 2020 elections – only for the results to be annulled by Senior General Min Aung Hlaing, a coup leader and self-appointed acting president. Mass street protests were crushed in early 2021 and war spread across Myanmar.

Although these elections will deliver just a façade of the legitimacy craved by some of the generals, they did succeed in projecting a power and authority that was quickly slipping away just two years ago as long-standing ethnic armed groups and newly formed People’s Defence Forces (PDFs) inflicted a series of humiliating defeats on the junta.

“The tide has turned in favour of the military,” commented a veteran Myanmar analyst in Yangon, crediting China, which reined in the ethnic groups on its shared border, fully embraced Min Aung Hlaing and, along with Russia, delivered the arms, technology and training needed to peg back the resistance.

Campaigners for the pro-military USDP canvas residents and check voters lists in Yangon ahead of the December 28 parliamentary election that excluded major anti-junta parties. Credit: Guy Dinmore/IPS

The regime’s air power and newly acquired drones have been deployed to ruthless effect, often hitting civilian targets in relatively remote areas where the resistance has grassroots support. Air strikes were stepped up as the elections approached. Major cities like Yangon were calm; people subdued.

Bombs dropped on Tabayin township in the Sagaing Region on December 5 killed 18 people, including many in a busy tea shop, AFP reported. On December 10, air strikes on a hospital in the ancient capital of Mrauk-U in Rakhine State were reported to have killed 10 patients and 23 others. The regime accused the insurgent Arakan Army and PDFs of using it as a base.

“I don’t think that anyone believes that those elections will be free and fair,” UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres stated while visiting the region ahead of the polls. He called on the junta to end its “deplorable” violence and find “a credible path” back to civilian rule.

In contrast, the Trump administration declared in November that the junta’s election plans were “free and fair” and removed Temporary Protected Status from Myanmar refugees in the US, saying their country was safe for them to return to.

“I’ll be jailed if I don’t vote,” said Min, a Yangon taxi driver, only half-joking on the eve of voting in Yangon, the commercial capital. “And what difference does it make? We are ruled by China and Xi Jinping, not Min Aung Hlaing,” he added.

With the polls spread over three stages, the first 102 townships voted on December 28. Others will follow on January 11 and January 25 to make a total of 265 of Myanmar’s 330 townships scheduled to vote for the bicameral national parliament and assemblies in the 14 regions and states.

Residents in downtown Yangon check their names on the electoral register and then cast their votes in a polling station on December 28. Credit: Guy Dinmore/IPS

No voting is to be held at all in the remaining 65 townships that the election commission deemed too unsafe.

Voting in the first round in Yangon, an urban and semi-rural sprawl of seven million people, proceeded calmly and slowly on a quiet Sunday – despite intense efforts, and sometimes threats, by the regime to boost the turnout.

In 2020 and 2015 – when Myanmar arguably held the region’s most open and fair elections and the military’s proxy Union Solidarity and Development Party (USDP), was soundly defeated – people gaily posted images of their ink-stained little fingers on social media as evidence of their vote after weeks of packed rallies and vibrant campaign rallies.

But not this time. Social media posts hurled insults, some comic and vulgar, at the regime. Those eager to support the resistance’s boycott but who were afraid of reprisals were relieved if they found their names had been omitted by mistake on electoral lists. Electronic voting machines in use for the first time made it impossible to leave a blank.

But as in past elections, a solid core of people close to the military and its web of powerful economic interests turned out to vote for the USDP.

“We are choosing our government,” declared one man exiting a polling station in central Yangon with his family, apparently USDP supporters. One proudly waved his little finger dipped in indelible ink.

How can you hold elections and bomb civilians at the same time? - Khin Ohmar, civil rights activist
Turnout for the first round was put by regime officials at 52 percent. This compares with about 70 percent in the past two elections. China’s special envoy – sent as an official observer, along with others from Russia, Belarus, Vietnam and Cambodia – praised the elections.

On January 2, the election commission unexpectedly issued partial results: the USDP, led by retired generals, had won 38 of 40 seats in the lower house where votes had been tallied to date. No one blinked.

The USDP campaign message focused on two main elements – get out and vote with all your family, and back a USDP government to restore stability and progress to Myanmar.

Its underlying message was a reminder that the last USDP administration, led by President Thein Sein introduced socio-economic and political reforms and ceasefire negotiations with ethnic groups after securing a large majority in the 2010 elections when the NLD and other opposition groups were also absent.

Aung San Suu Kyi, then under house arrest, was released just after the 2010 polls and went on to contest and win a seat in a 2012 by-election ahead of the NLD’s own sweeping victory in 2015. Aung San Suu Kyi governed in a difficult power-sharing arrangement with the military for the next five years and was thrown back into prison in the coup.

For now a large proportion of Myanmar’s population lives in areas under junta control, including all 14 of the state and regional capitals, swollen by an influx of people fleeing conflict.  The military also holds major seaports and airports and – to varying degrees – the main border crossings for China and Thailand.

But in terms of territory, over half of Myanmar is in the hands of disparate ethnic armed groups and resistance forces. Alliances are fluid and negotiable.

The shadow National Unity Government is trying to establish its own authority over liberated territory, looking to cement a consensus around the concept of a democratic and federal Myanmar free of the military’s interference – something that has eluded the country since independence from British colonial rule in 1948.

Front lines shift back and forth as the military struggles to regain control over the Bamar heartlands of central Myanmar, once considered their bastion, while stretched elsewhere after losing vast tracts of border areas since the coup. Several million people have fled the country or are internally displaced.

Once again there is some speculation that a “smooth” election and the formation of a USDP government in April will lead to a gesture signalling the military’s confidence, such as a possible ending of forced conscription and the release of some political prisoners. Project power, then collect legitimacy.

“Political prisoners are used as bait,” said Khin Ohmar, the civil rights activist in Bangkok. “The world would at least have to applaud.”

IPS UN Bureau Report

 

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

• Ceasefire Collapse and Regime Controls Hamper Myanmar Quake Relief
• Myanmar’s ‘Forgotten War’ Lurches Deeper into Horror

The UN report, released last month, calls for a fundamental recalibration of global security and development strategies, prioritizing diplomacy and international cooperation to reverse the current trend of escalating military spending. Credit: UNDP

By Alice Slater
NEW YORK, Jan 6 2026 (IPS)

The United Nations issued a year end Fact Sheet: Rising global military expenditures, starkly illuminating that last year’s record high of $2.7 trillion in military expenditures, caused a cascade of devastating consequences to human well-being, the environment, possibilities for avoiding climate collapse, as well as blows to employment, ending hunger and poverty, providing health care, education, and other ills, due to a lack of adequate funding support.

The Fact Sheet does an admirable job of illustrating the shocking maldistribution of States massive military expenditures and what that money could buy in many instances, such as to end hunger and malnutrition, provide clean water and sanitation, education, environmental remediation, and so much more.

But isn’t it time for the UN to issue a Fact Sheet: Lost Opportunities to Halt Rising Military Expenditures and Heal the Earth? After all, just this summer on the 80th Anniversary of WWII, Russia and China issued a Joint Statement by the Russian Federation and the People’s Republic of China on Global Strategic Security in which they urged that in acknowledging that anniversary and the founding of the United Nations, States and their associations “should not seek to ensure their own security at the expense and to the detriment of the security of other States.” adding that ”the destinies of the peoples of all countries are interrelated.”

Even a cursory examination of the sorry history of the United States and its nuclear alliance, in seeking to secure military domination at the expense of Russia and China, shows a sad list of missed opportunities to accept Russia and China’s offers to negotiate for peace and disarmament, which would have freed up trillions of dollars over the years to address the crisis we now face for preserving all life on earth.

The most recent opportunity that should be on the list, (met with deafening silence by the corrupt western media, laboring under the heavy thumb of their corporate military sponsors, who delight in the billions lining their pockets to produce the burgeoning war machine) was China and Russia’s Joint Statement criticizing the US misbegotten Golden Dome space project and opposing any countries use of outer space for armed confrontation.”

They urged negotiations based on the Russian-Chinese draft treaty to prevent weapons and use of force in outer space, proposed at the UN Committee on Disarmament in 2008 and 2014, where consensus is required to negotiate a treaty and the United States vetoed it each time, preventing any discussion. Amazingly, they further pledged that to prevent an arms race in outer space and promote peace in space, they would “agree to promote on a global scale the international initiative/political commitment not to be the first to deploy weapons in outer space.” In other words, No First Use.

While peace in space is the most recent Lost Opportunity, the first Lost Opportunity happened in 1946 when President Truman rejected Stalin’s proposal that the US turn the bomb over to international supervision at the newly formed UN, so Russia got the bomb.

President Reagan rejected Gorbachev’s plea to give up Star Wars as a condition for both countries to eliminate all their nuclear weapons when the wall came down and Gorbachev released all of Eastern Europe from Soviet occupation, thus losing the opportunity to abolish our nuclear arsenals.

More Lost Opportunities: the expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) up to Russia’s border despite promises made when the wall came down that NATO would not expand east of a reunified Germany:

President Clinton’s refusal of Putin’s offer to go down to 1000 bombs each, and then call all nuclear states to negotiate for their elimination, provided the US stopped developing missile sites in Romania.

President Bush walked out of the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and put the new base in Romania; President Trump put one in Poland.

President Obama rejected Putin’s offer to negotiate a treaty to ban cyber war! [i]

Had the US been more open over the years to cooperation, instead of losing so many opportunities to make peace, we would be so much more able to deal with the urgency of preserving a livable planet for all and avoiding the dire consequences enumerated in the new UN Fact Sheet on global military expenditures. It’s still not too late to take up the Russian-Chinese proposal for peace in space. May wiser heads prevail.

[i] https://pirm.medium.com/why-no-international-treaty-for-cybersecurity-to-ban-cyber-attacks-5a53d8b3fdd1

https://www.un.org/sites/un2.un.org/files/milex-docs/MILEX_UN_Fact_Sheet.pdf

Alice Slater serves on the Boards of World BEYOND War and the Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space, and is a UN NGO Representative for the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

IPS UN Bureau

 

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

By Jomo Kwame Sundaram
KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia, Jan 6 2026 (IPS)

While US President Donald Trump has blamed the BRICS and foreign investors for de-dollarisation, his rhetoric, actions and policy measures are mainly responsible for the trend’s recent acceleration.

Jomo Kwame Sundaram

Threats and reactions
Although Trump is not the sole cause of de-dollarisation, which began much earlier, well before he became president, his recent initiatives have accelerated the trend.

Despite some temporary reversals, the dollar’s post-World War II role as world reserve currency has gradually declined over the decades, especially since the 1970s. Ben Norton has argued that several Trump measures have accelerated this trend.

Trump claims his supposedly ‘reciprocal tariffs’ will reduce the US trade or current account deficit with the rest of the world. But if countries cannot export to the US, they cannot earn dollars to meet their trade and investment needs.

Many believe Trump’s tariffs and other threats are enhancing US leverage vis-à-vis others, but their reactions, including defensive countermeasures, are accelerating de-dollarisation.

Trump’s measures, such as his insistence on bilateral negotiations, have alarmed most nations, including long-time allies. As nations, including allies, rethink their economic relations with and vulnerability to the US, de-dollarisation inadvertently accelerates.

Trump vs the Fed
The US Federal Reserve Bank’s overnight lending or funds rate has been higher since 2022, responding to higher consumer price inflation following the pandemic and the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

As the Fed raised interest rates, yields on US government debt rose. But Trump now wants the Fed to cut interest rates to reduce the high debt servicing costs of both the government and private corporations.

In 2024, the US federal government paid about 3% of GDP in debt interest alone. Although such debt exceeds 120% of GDP, debt service costs are deemed manageable as long as interest rates remain low.

Trump’s pressures on the Fed to cut interest rates have inadvertently undermined investor confidence and prompted ‘flights [from dollar assets] to safety’.

Trump’s recent campaign against his earlier Fed chair appointee, Jerome Powell, has inadvertently raised investor concerns about his espoused monetary policy priorities.

Inflation fears persist
Investors now worry that Trump is pressuring the Fed to cut interest rates. They believe this will stoke inflation and cause the dollar to fall against other major currencies. As Trump is seen forcing down interest rates, he risks being blamed for persistent inflation.

If the Fed buys US Treasuries to reduce yields, for a new round of ‘quantitative easing’ (QE), dollar asset investments will realise lower, if not negative, real yields.

Although inflation hawks’ worst fears of higher inflation have not materialised so far, few believe tariffs will not raise inflation.

Expecting Trump 2.0 to impose more tariffs, many US companies stockpiled imports before April 2. As tariffs took effect and stocks declined, prices rose.

Many investors have sold their dollar assets as monetary authorities worldwide seek alternatives to the greenback. Such sell-offs lower the dollar’s value, further spurring de-dollarisation.

Trump now wants to lower US Treasury bond yields as foreign governments and investors seek alternatives to holding dollar assets.

Many are considering switching to non-dollar assets despite stagnation tendencies elsewhere in the Global North, especially in Europe and Japan. If investors stop buying dollar assets or sell them to purchase non-dollar assets, de-dollarisation will gain momentum.

Foreign demand falling
Washington is understandably worried that foreign investors will dump Treasury securities. In 2015, a third was held by foreigners, but this has since fallen to under a quarter.

The ‘Mar-A-Lago Accord’ proposal, which requires foreign governments to hold US Treasury ‘century bonds’ for 100 years despite assured losses, will compound resentment.

Lowering Treasury bond yields is both risky and difficult due to the highly financialised US economy. Past bond market turmoil has triggered stock market selloffs, lowering Treasury yields, share prices and tax revenue.

Government and corporate borrowing costs rise together. As trillions of dollars’ worth of corporate bonds mature over the next two years, high interest rates will raise corporations’ borrowing costs. Many want to refinance at lower interest rates.

These efforts to bring down interest rates are apparent to all. But lower interest rates and negative ‘actual yields’ for Treasury securities will ensure high inflation persists.

De-dollarisation accelerating?
Trump’s actions, especially threats of tariffs and sanctions, have elicited diverse reactions, often undermining dollar hegemony and accelerating de-dollarisation.

Many recent developments have undermined public confidence in the US government and the rule of law, accelerating de-dollarisation.

As investors sold US assets in mid-2025, the dollar saw its biggest fall since the 1973 oil price hike. It fell by over 10% against other major currencies, triggering temporary falls in the prices of many financial assets, including equities and bonds.

Since then, there has been increased capital market uncertainty and volatility, as in the US bond market, although a strong rally followed the ensuing stock market crash.

In many recent episodes of financial volatility, dollar liquidity was considered the safe option. But in 2025, confidence in dollar assets fell, prompting selloffs and de-dollarisation.

Thus far, Trump has been adept at managing short-term volatility, but his style implies no one knows when the music will stop.

IPS UN Bureau

 

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

• World Must Pay to Make America Great Again
• Trump Undresses Rival Trade Myths
• Trump Accord Sows Discord in US Empire
• Trump’s ‘Shock and Awe’ Tariffs
• America First Deepens World Stagnation
• An ‘Exorbitant Privilege’ for All?
• Weaponizing Free Trade Agreements
• Trade, Currency War Weapons Double-Edged
• What’s different about Trump’s tariffs?
• Trump’s Trade War in Perspective

Pro-Democracy protesters gather in front of the headquarters of the Sudanese army in the capital, Khartoum. Credit: Masarib/Ahmed Bahhar via UN News

By Robert Misik
VIENNA, Austria, Jan 5 2026 (IPS)

Consider our political systems not merely as battlegrounds of passions, ideologies and economic interests, but as systematically functioning arrangements of interactions, akin to game theory. In recent decades, we have witnessed the dissolution of large homogeneous groups into numerous subgroups — a patchwork of minorities.

This fragmentation, compounded by individualisation and the resulting weakening of strong political bonds, has profound consequences for democratic governance.

In nations with majority voting systems, this process fragments the party system itself. As dissatisfaction with political parties grows – initially quietly but eventually becoming pronounced – new parties emerge, further splintering the political landscape.

This increasing fragmentation complicates government formation and makes majorities more precarious. Often, only coalitions that can agree on the lowest common denominator are formed. Consequently, the outcomes of politics do not necessarily improve; in most cases, they worsen.

A vicious circle

Decisive action, bold moves and clear leadership have become increasingly elusive. This reinforces dissatisfaction and the prevailing sentiment among voters that politicians are failing to achieve meaningful results. Doubts about the effectiveness of the political system become self-perpetuating, creating a situation where decisive politics is nearly impossible.

The rise of populists and right-wing extremists is both a consequence of this stagnation and a further catalyst — a ratchet effect. Right-wing agitators stoke discontent, transforming it into anger and outrage while exploiting negative emotions.

As they gain strength, democratic politics becomes more paralysed, often preoccupied with defending against radicalism, preventing the worst outcomes, and forming coalitions whose members can agree on little more than a lacklustre commitment to ‘more of the same’.

When social cohesion erodes, the radical right gains ground — which then leads to even more division. The perceived polarisation and alienation that accompanies the rise of right-wing extremism increases the perception of social disintegration and decay.

Democracy gives rise to its own threats

In a sense, right-wing radicalism is itself the problem that it then laments in a subsequent cycle. It is the disintegration that it denounces. In this way, it contributes to the chain of evidence that reinforces authoritarian reflexes. Authoritarianism feeds authoritarianism.

These framework conditions of political systems – fragmentation and the resulting weakness of action – lead German democracy theorist Veith Selk to diagnose that modernisation and social change are increasingly putting democracy under stress, making a reversal unlikely.

This presents a rather depressing diagnosis of decline: democracy gives rise to its own threats.

Additionally, globalisation necessitates ‘global governance’, which, even under favourable circumstances, has historically produced solutions at an unbearably slow pace and is now reaching its limits amid chaotic multilateralism.

Conversely, ‘de-globalisation’ – through national power politics, tariffs and trade wars – provides no relief and instead creates new problems, such as the loss of sales markets, disrupted supply chains and a consequent decline in economic growth, potentially destroying whole economic sectors.

Europe’s mounting crises

The emergencies of the future are already on the horizon. The climate catastrophe threatens not only our livelihoods but also has tangible economic repercussions. Crop failures due to droughts and floods are already contributing to rising inflation in the cost of living, particularly for vegetables and fruit.

This situation is certain to become much more severe. Even if successful, socio-economic transformation will be costly. Insurance companies may face financial difficulties, asset portfolios could lose value rapidly, and if we are unfortunate, a sudden ‘Minsky moment’ could trigger a downward spiral leading to a financial crisis.

Ageing populations are already straining public finances, with healthcare and care systems becoming increasingly expensive, pushing European welfare states to their financial limits.

Government debt is rising, and under current conditions, it will be more challenging to “grow out” of debt than it was in the past. Growth will be harder to mobilise, and austerity is not a viable alternative, as contraction strategies lead to dire consequences. These are all concerning prospects.

Here are a few highlights:

Germany’s economy has stagnated for six years, and private investment remains weak. France is facing a budget deficit of 5.8 per cent and a public debt ratio of 113 per cent of GDP, while sliding from one government crisis to another. Political actors are unable to achieve a socially just change of course that would reconcile savings in the pension system with additional revenue from wealth taxes.

Austria was projected to have a budget deficit of six per cent, prompting left-wing Keynesian Finance Minister Markus Marterbauer to assemble a package of tightening measures aimed at reducing the deficit to 4.5 per cent by 2025.

Ensuring that large fortunes contribute to costs through higher taxation is not only a matter of fairness but also an economic necessity — yet there is a lack of parliamentary majorities for decisive measures nearly everywhere.

There is a growing desire for politics to provide sensible solutions instead of getting bogged down in petty details.

A whole panorama of emergencies is unfolding before us. As noted earlier, most of those in power have little energy or flexibility to think and act beyond daily problems. This situation has tangible and psychopolitical effects: citizens feel that things are deteriorating and that serious trouble is brewing, while simultaneously sensing that those in power are merely tinkering with details.

For many, this leads to outright fear and a generally pessimistic mood, which in turn fuels the rise of right-wing radicals.

The political forces of the left and the conservative centre must, above all, demonstrate their ability to act together. A few years ago, the prevailing view was that various political camps should dare to engage in more conflict to make democratic life more vibrant.

At that time, there were complaints about everyone crowding into the centre and becoming interchangeable. However, we find ourselves in a different situation today.

There is a growing desire for politics to provide sensible solutions instead of getting bogged down in petty details or wasting time on pointless culture wars. The left may need to acknowledge that states are reaching their financial limits, while conservatives must recognise that clientele politics, which ensures free rides for the super-wealthy, is no longer viable.
Urgent issues require swift action, and all of this comes at a high cost.

Rhetoric is no longer effective, and pandering to the extreme right leads nowhere. Conservatives, in particular, need to understand this, as they sometimes give the impression that they view fascists as merely slightly more radical conservatives (or conservatives as moderate fascists).

This perception is not only misguided; it also highlights a significant identity crisis within traditional conservatism. Fortunately, some are beginning to realise that authoritarianism is not a relative; it is the enemy. The best way to undermine it is to demonstrate a commitment to action.

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

This is from a joint publication by Social Europe and IPS Journal.

Source: International Politics and Society (IPS), Brussels, Belgium

IPS UN Bureau

 

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

Security Council Meets on Threats to International Peace and Security. Credit: UN Photo/Mark Garten

By Cecilia Russell
UNITED NATIONS & JOHANNESBURG, Jan 5 2026 (IPS)

United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres expressed deep concern about the immediate future of Venezuela.

In a statement read by Under-Secretary-General for Political and Peacebuilding Affairs Rosemary DiCarlo, Guterres told the Security Council’s emergency meeting he was deeply concerned about “possible intensification of the instability in the country, the potential impact on the region, and the precedent it may set for how relations between and among states are conducted.”

On Saturday, U.S. President Donald Trump announced that he was putting Venezuela under temporary American control following the capture of President Nicolas Maduro and his wife, Cilia Adela Flores, in a raid and whisking them to New York to face charges, including drug trafficking.

Guterres stated at the emergency Security Council meeting, which was set to discuss threats to international peace and security, that the situation in Venezuela has been a matter of regional and international concern for many years.

“Attention on the country only grew following the contested presidential elections in July 2024. The panel of electoral experts I appointed at the Venezuelan Government’s request to accompany the elections highlighted serious issues. We have consistently called for full transparency and the complete publication of the results of the elections.”

Yet, he said, it was necessary to respect international law.

“I have consistently stressed the imperative of full respect, by all, for international law, including the Charter of the United Nations, which provides the foundation for the maintenance of international peace and security.

“I remain deeply concerned that rules of international law have not been respected with regard to the 3 January military action.”

Guterres called on all Venezuelan actors to engage in an inclusive, democratic dialogue in which all sectors of society can determine their future.

Jeffrey Sachs, the President of the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network, urged the UN Security Council to declare an immediate cessation and desist from any explicit or implicit threats or use of force against Venezuela.

He also requested the council demand the United States terminate its naval quarantine and all related coercive military measures undertaken without Security Council authorization.

Merchy de Freitas, founder and executive director of Transparencia Venezuela, the national chapter of Transparency International, said the country ranked among the world’s most corrupt countries, with over 500 documented cases involving USD 72 billion, mostly public funds.

She said there was a symbiotic relationship between the Maduro regime and criminal organizations, which have exploited national parks and the Amazon for gold and other illicit activities. The crisis has led to a decrease in state income, affecting basic services and causing severe humanitarian issues, including a lack of electricity, food, and medical care.

“The government has captured all institutions, beginning with the justice institutions,” she said. “We need a transparent state that is accountable and that will guarantee the rule of law and human rights.”

De Freitas called for a transparent and accountable state, respect for human rights, and the release of political prisoners.

A representative from Columbia expressed concern over what it considers a “violation of international law and the UN Charter and expressed concern over the regional impact, including a potential migration crisis.

She emphasized the importance of respecting sovereignty, territorial integrity, and the principles of peaceful conflict resolution while expressing concerns over the regional impact, including potential migration crises, and calling for de-escalation and diplomatic solutions.

Russia and China, among others, condemned the United States’ action.

However, the United States informed the council that it had launched a “law enforcement operation” against Maduro and Flores, accusing them of “narcoterrorism and drug trafficking.”

Maduro, who was indicted by a New York grand jury, faces serious charges for his role in a conspiracy involving cocaine trafficking and international weapons trafficking, he told the council.

He justified the operation because Maduro’s presidency was illegitimate due to his manipulation of Venezuela’s electoral system and commented that even the UN had questioned his legitimacy. The United States also highlighted the destabilizing impact of Maduro’s regime, including the largest refugee crisis in the world, with over 8 million Venezuelans fleeing.

“Maduro and his cronies have partnered with some of the most violent and prolific drug traffickers and narcoterrorists in the world for decades, facilitating the flood of illegal drugs coming into the United States,” the representative told the Security Council, reminding the council that the United Nations had documented the excesses of the Maduro government.

The action by the United States had taken place after Trump had exhausted diplomacy, he said.

“The United States will not waver in its actions to protect Americans from the scourge of narcoterrorism and seeks peace, liberty and justice for the great people of Venezuela.”

Venezuela’s representative denounced the events of January 3, 2026, as an illegitimate armed attack by the US government.

“The events of January 3 constitute a flagrant violation of the UN Charter perpetrated by the US government, in particular, the principal violation of the principle of sovereign equality of states, of the absolute prohibition of the use or threat of use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state,” he said.

“Today, it is not only Venezuela sovereignty that is at stake, but also the credibility of international law, the authority of this organization, and the validity of the principle that no state can set itself up as a judge, jury, and executor of the world order.”

He denied the country was dysfunctional.

“Venezuela would like to inform this body and the international community that its institutions are functioning normally, that constitutional order has been preserved, and that the state exercises effective control over all of its territory in accordance with our Constitution.

While Spain said they did not recognize the Maduro presidency, they were concerned that the United States’ action would set a worrying precedent.

“We share the view that fighting organized crime in the region is a priority, but that fight can only be waged through international cooperation. We also share the view that it is a priority to defend human rights and fundamental freedoms in Venezuela,” the representative said, adding that it would “work to unite Venezuelans, men and women. Spain is committed to dialogue and peace, because force never brings more democracy.”

IPS UN Bureau Report

 

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

By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Jan 5 2026 (IPS)

The statistics are staggering: while military spending keeps skyrocketing, Official Development Assistance (ODA)– from the rich to some of the world’s poorer nations– has been declining drastically.

According to a Fact Sheet released by the UN last week, the $2.7 trillion allocated in just one year (2024) to global military spending amounted to $334 for every person on the planet; the size of the entire Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of all African countries; more than half the GDP of all Latin American countries; 750 times the 2024 UN regular budget; and almost 13 times the amount of ODA provided by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) in 2024

Over 100 countries increased their military budgets, with the top ten spenders alone accounting for 73% of the total. Despite making up about a quarter of the UN’s Member States and nearly 20% of the world’s population, African nations collectively account for less than 2% of global military spending.

If the current trend continues, warns UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterre, military spending could increase to $3.5 trillion by 2030 and exceed $4.7 trillion, potentially climbing to $6.6 trillion, by 2035. A $6.6 trillion spending is equivalent to almost five times the level at the end of the cold war, six times the lowest global level (1998), and two and a half times the level spent in 2024 ($2.7 trillion).

James E. Jennings, PhD, President, Conscience International, told IPS while the world was celebrating a Happy New Year January 1, those who have read global military budgets for 2026 can only weep.

The recently released UN fact sheet on worldwide spending for weapons and military expenses reveals a fearful future for humanity in the coming decades. “That’s because of the vast disparity between our lust for power and dominance as opposed to our lack of concern for the growing millions of people living in abject poverty,” he said.

Such conditions, he pointed out, guarantee that children who lack clean water and sanitation will suffer from easily curable diseases and have little access to education. “There is a direct connection between buying airplanes, tanks, and bombs, and taking food out of the mouths of babies. Even a tiny percentage of the money spent annually on arms would alleviate world hunger in just a few years.”

Another way of understanding the issue is the global distribution of wealth, disadvantaging the Global South. Health, especially children’s health, is primary. It could be radically transformed by vaccinations and medicines that are readily available and cheap compared to military equipment and technology.

Education is the top prize that can transform lives and societies but is unavailable to many people in the world’s neediest countries. What is most worrisome to those who are paying attention is the fact that military expenditures are rising. Where that will lead if the trend continues is dreadful to contemplate, declared Dr Jennings.

Meanwhile, the UN Fact Sheet says:

Less than 4% ($93 billion) of $2.7 trillion is needed annually to end world hunger by 2030.

· A little over 10% ($285 billion) of $2.7 trillion could fully vaccinate every child.
· $5 trillion could fund 12 years of quality education of every child in low- and lower-middle-income countries.
· Spending $1 billion on the military creates 11,200 jobs, but the same amount creates 26,700 jobs in education, 17,200 in healthcare or 16,800 in clean energy.
· Reinvesting 15% ($387 billion) of the $2.7 trillion is more than enough to cover the annual costs of climate change adaptation in developing countries.
· Each dollar spent on the military generates over twice the greenhouse gas emissions of a dollar invested in civilian sectors.

The 38-membe OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) points out that ODA is currently on “a significant decline”, with major donor countries like the U.S., France, Germany, and the UK cutting aid budgets, leading to projected drops of 9-17% in 2025 after a 9% fall in 2024, impacting the poorest nations and vital services like health.

This marks a sharp reversal after years of growth, driven by domestic spending (like refugee costs) and shifting priorities.

Alice Slater, who serves on the Boards of World BEYOND War and the Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space and a UN NGO Representative for the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, told IPS the UN’s Fact Sheet, starkly illuminating last year’s record high of $2.7 trillion in military expenditures, caused a cascade of devastating consequences to human well-being, the environment, possibilities for avoiding climate collapse, as well as blows to employment, ending hunger and poverty, providing health care, education, and other ills, due to a lack of adequate funding support.

The Fact Sheet, she said, does an admirable job of illustrating the shocking maldistribution of States massive military expenditures and what that money could buy in many instances, such as to end hunger and malnutrition, provide clean water and sanitation, education, environmental remediation, and so much more.

In a message to world leaders last week, Guterres said: ·“As we enter the new year, the world stands at a crossroads. Chaos and uncertainty surround us. People everywhere are asking: Are leaders even listening? Are they ready to act?”

Today, the scale of human suffering is staggering – over one-quarter of humanity lives in areas affected by conflict. More than 200 million people globally need humanitarian assistance, and nearly 120 million people have been forcibly displaced, fleeing war, crises, disasters or persecution.

“As we turn the page on a turbulent year, one fact speaks louder than words: global military spending has soared to $2.7 trillion, growing by almost 10 per cent.”

Yet, as humanitarian crises around the world intensify, global military spending is projected to more than double – from $2.7 trillion in 2024 to an astonishing $6.6 trillion by 2035 – if current trends persist. Data shows that $2.7 trillion is thirteen times the amount of all global development aid combined and is equivalent to the entire Gross Domestic Product of the continent of Africa.

“On this New Year, let’s resolve to get our priorities straight. A safer world begins by investing more in fighting poverty and less in fighting wars. Peace must prevail,” urged Guterres.

In September 2025, the Secretary-General, as requested by UN Member States in the 2024 Pact for the Future, launched a report that revealed a stark imbalance in global spending. Called The Security We Need: Rebalancing Military Spending for a Sustainable and Peaceful Future, the report examines the difficult trade-offs presented by the increasing global military spending, making a powerful case for investing in peace and in people’s futures:

“It’s clear the world has the resources to lift lives, heal the planet, and secure a future of peace and justice,” says Guterres. “In 2026, I call on leaders everywhere: Get serious. Choose people and planet over pain.”

“This New Year, let’s rise together: For justice. For humanity. For peace.”

IPS UN Bureau Report

 

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

By CIVICUS
Jan 2 2026 (IPS)

 
CIVICUS discusses Kazakhstan’s anti-LGBTQI+ bill with Temirlan Baimash, activist and co-founder of QUEER KZ youth initiative, a Kazakhstani LGBTQI+ organisation.

Temirlan Baimash

On 12 November, Kazakhstan’s lower house of parliament unanimously passed a bill banning ‘LGBTQI+ propaganda’, introducing fines and up to 10 days’ imprisonment for repeat offences. Although homosexuality was decriminalised in 1998, the bill, which has now been approved by the Senate and awaits presidential signature, will likely intensify censorship, harassment and violence against LGBTQI+ people and obstruct civil society organisations that advocate for their rights.

Why is the government pursuing an anti-LGBTQI+ law now?

The government has both domestic and geopolitical reasons for pushing this new law criminalising LGBTQI+ activism and expression.

At home, it’s facing growing public dissatisfaction. Promoting an anti-LGBTQI+ law helps shift attention away from economic problems and demands of accountability for abuses, including the mass shootings and killing of peaceful protesters ordered by President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev in January. The law also helps mobilise conservative support and score political points. Anti-LGBTQI+ rhetoric presents queer people as a threat to what are described as ‘traditional values’, deepening stigma and making violence seem acceptable. State-aligned media repeat this message, while authorities tolerate it, creating a climate where attacks against LGBTQI+ people and human rights defenders are increasingly normalised.

External factors also play a role. In the context of deteriorating relations with the USA, the government is increasingly copying Russian policies. For example, authorities have been pushing a foreign agents law similar to Russia’s. This move is also intended to demonstrate to Russia that Kazakhstan remains its ally. In this context, authorities have intensified repression at home, particularly against journalists and LGBTQI+ people, using our community as a convenient political target.

How will this bill affect LGBTQI+ people if adopted?

Although the law hasn’t been adopted yet, it’s already affecting us. Repression has intensified, and my colleagues and I have faced arrest, detention, torture and other forms of ill-treatment.

In October, our colleague Aziyat Agishev spoke out against the proposed law at a civic forum attended by government representatives. Two days later, military personnel abducted him, beat him and denied him access to his lawyer and family despite there being no legal grounds for his detention. He was only released thanks to media and public pressure.

A month later, during a private presentation of research on LGBTQI+ people in Kazakhstan, a group of homophobic people forced their way into the venue, filmed us and provoked a confrontation. Later that day, police detained our colleague Ardzh Turynkhan, held him overnight and fined him around US$170. While he was detained, officers mocked him, threatened him with rape and physical violence and ignored his requests for help, despite the fact he has a disability.

Just one day after this incident, on 22 November, the same group attacked us again in a café. Although we were the victims, police detained me instead, clearly in retaliation for our activism. They held me for three hours without showing any legal documents, surrounded by around 10 police officers and secret service agents. They later fined me on unrelated grounds. My colleague and I now face the risk of criminal charges based on false accusations, which could lead to prison sentences.

How are you opposing this law?

Despite the risks, we continue to document violations, speak out publicly and try to keep attention on what is happening. This law can still be blocked, because President Tokayev has between 10 and 30 days to sign it, and he hasn’t signed it yet. We and other civil society groups are mobilising to stop it.

We also work to empower LGBTQI+ people. We run workshops to help young queer people understand their rights and begin their journeys as activists. We share information and organise community events and gatherings to strengthen networks and build resilience.

Because civic space is heavily restricted and domestic avenues for dissent are extremely limited, international advocacy is essential. We engage human rights mechanisms by preparing shadow reports for processes such as the United Nations (UN) Human Rights Council Universal Periodic Review process and reviews under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

What international support are you receiving, and what more is needed?

International civil society organisations such as Front Line Defenders and the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association support our work, alongside organisations such as COC Netherlands and intergovernmental bodies including the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe and UN mechanisms.

Their support is vital, but it isn’t enough. We need governments such as France, Germany, the Netherlands and the UK – which are major investors in Kazakhstan – to pay more attention to what’s happening on the ground. Naming and shaming can work, but only if it’s followed by real consequences. These governments must pressure our government economically and politically to stop this law from passing.

We also need international media to tell our story. This repressive law cannot be ignored, yet so far we have struggled to reach journalists willing to report on our illegal arrests, kidnappings and torture. Press coverage, public statements and sustained pressure from international civil society, media and public figures can make a difference by putting Kazakhstan under the spotlight and increasing the political cost of signing this bill into law.

GET IN TOUCH
Instagram

SEE ALSO
Pride 2025: resistance rising CIVICUS Lens 27.Jul.2025
Georgia: ‘The ‘anti-LGBT’ bill would make life nearly impossible for LGBTQI+ people’ CIVICUS Lens | Interview with Tamar Jakeli 10.Aug.2024
A ‘New Kazakhstan’, or more of the same? CIVICUS Lens 02.Dec.2022

 

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

Credit: Isabel Infantes/Reuters via Gallo Images

By Andrew Firmin
LONDON, Dec 30 2025 (IPS)

Satellite images show corpses piled high in El Fasher, North Darfur, awaiting mass burial or cremation as the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) militia tries to cover up the scale of its crimes. Up to 150,000 El Fasher residents remain missing from the city, seized by the RSF in November. The lowest estimate is that 60,000 are dead. The Arab militia has ethnically cleansed the city of its non-Arab residents. The slaughter is the latest horrific episode in the war between the RSF and the Sudan Armed Forces, sparked by a power battle between military leaders in April 2023.

Both sides have committed atrocities, including executions, extrajudicial killings and sexual violence. It’s hard to gather accurate figures, but at least 150,000 people are estimated to have been killed. Around nine million people have been internally displaced, and close to four million more have fled across the border. Some 25 million now face famine.

Civil society and humanitarian workers are responding as best they can, but they’re in the firing line. They face death, violence, abduction and detention. Emergency orders impose bureaucratic restrictions on civil society organisations and limit aid operations and freedoms of assembly, expression and movement, while troops also block aid delivery.

Reporting on the conflict is difficult and dangerous. Almost all media infrastructure has been destroyed, many newspapers have stopped publishing and both sides are targeting journalists, with many forced into exile. Extensive disinformation campaigns obscure what’s happening on the ground. Mohamed Khamis Douda, spokesperson for the Zamzam displacement camp, exemplified the dangers for those who tell the truth. He stayed on in El Fasher to provide vital updates to international media. When the RSF invaded, they sought him out and killed him.

The world looks away

Sudan is sometimes called a forgotten war, but it’s more accurate to say the world is choosing to ignore it – and this suits several powerful states. The United Arab Emirates (UAE) is the RSF’s biggest backer. It continues to deny this, even though weapons manufactured by the UAE or supplied to it by its allies have been found at sites recovered from RSF control. Without its support, the RSF would likely have lost the war by now.

In recent years, the UAE has worked to cultivate influence among several African states. It has developed a series of ports around Africa, with one planned on Sudan’s stretch of the Red Sea. It has big agricultural investments in Sudan and receives most of the gold mined there. The UAE has evidently concluded that RSF control is the best way of securing its influence and protecting its interests, regardless of the cost in human lives. In response, Sudan’s government has moved to improve links with Russia. It’s been reported it may allow Russia to develop a permanent Red Sea naval base.

The UAE faces little international pressure because western states that are strongly aligned with it, including the UK and USA, downplay its role. The UK government continues to supply the UAE with arms in the knowledge these are being transferred to the RSF, while a whistleblower has accused it of removing warnings about possible genocide in Sudan from a risk assessment analysis to protect the UAE. The European Union and UK reacted to the El Fasher atrocities by placing sanctions on four RSF leaders and the USA is said to be considering further sanctions, but these measures never reach as far as figures in the UAE government.

The UN Security Council, where the UK is the permanent member that leads on Sudan, has also been predictably ineffective. Russia has said it will veto any resolution the UK brings. Yet in June, the UK refused an offer from African states, serving on the Council on a rotating basis, to take over responsibility, something that could have created more space for negotiation.

Among other countries with regional influence, Egypt strongly favours the Sudan government, and Saudi Arabia is somewhat supportive too. They come together with the UAE and USA in a forum called the quad. Despite competing interests, in September there appeared grounds for hope when the quad brokered what was supposed to be a three-month humanitarian truce, followed by a nine-month transition to civilian rule. Both sides accepted the plan, only for the RSF to keep fighting, causing the Sudanese government to reject the proposal.

Pressure and accountability

Whether fighting halts may depend on the USA’s diplomatic whims. Trump has recently appeared to take more interest in the conflict, likely prompted by Saudi Arabia’s ruler Mohammed bin Salman, who visited the White House in November.

Trump may want to claim to have ended another conflict in his evident quest for the Nobel Peace Prize, but it’s hard to see progress unless the US government proves willing to pressure the UAE, including through tariffs, a blunt instrument Trump has used to force deals on other states. The fact the Trump administration currently applies tariffs at its lowest rate, 10 per cent, shows its continuing warmth towards the UAE.

Campaigners are trying to focus more attention on the UAE’s central role in the conflict. One highly visible focus is basketball: the NBA has an extensive and growing sponsorship agreement with the UAE, part of the regime’s efforts to sportswash its international reputation. Civil society campaigners are calling on the NBA to end its partnership, and their advocacy may help move Sudan up the US agenda.

The international community has the power to stop the killing, but first it must acknowledge the role of the UAE and its western allies in enabling it. All involved in the conflict, within and beyond Sudan, must put aside their calculations of narrow self-interest. The UAE, their allies and the other quad states should face greater pressure to broker a genuine ceasefire as a first step towards peace, and use their leverage with the warring parties to ensure they stick to it.

Andrew Firmin is CIVICUS Editor-in-Chief, co-director and writer for CIVICUS Lens and co-author of the State of Civil Society Report.

For interviews or more information, please contact research@civicus.org

 

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

The rainwater harvesting cistern is everywhere in Brazil's semi-arid region, a social technology that reduced water scarcity for its inhabitants. Elizabete Sousa Soares wanted to leave Jatobá when her daughter Maria was born 11 years ago, but decided to stay in her small rural town thanks to the cistern and other social technologies that have improved her life. Credit: Mario Osava / IPS

By Mario Osava
USERRA DAS ALMAS, Brazil, Dec 29 2025 (IPS)

“The work of collecting seeds saved me from depression,” caused by her daughter’s suicide at the age of 29, said Maria do Desterro Soares, 64, who lives in the poor rural community of Jatobá in northeastern Brazil.

She drew her younger sister, Maria de Jesus Soares, 45, who lost her husband in a car accident and also struggles to avoid falling into depression, into the activity. The two walk together for nearly two hours to reach the forests where seeds abound.“The reserve is a great water reservoir. A study we conducted on avoided runoff showed this 6,285-hectare area can retain an astonishing 4.78 billion liters per year” - Gilson Miranda.

They only earn some 1,000 reais (US$185) in a “good year,” but “it’s my work, my pleasure, it’s what I want and I like doing it,” claimed Maria do Desterro, who also makes ice cream and medicines for flu and other illnesses with locally sourced juices, teas, peels, and honey.

She is one of the 121 people trained by the Caatinga Association (AC) through 2023 for the collection and management of seeds from native plants of this biome exclusive to Brazil, as a way to generate income and restore forests.

The association, founded in 1998 to protect the caatinga, the biome of the semi-arid region in the Brazilian northeast, manages the Serra das Almas Natural Reserve (RNSA) and disseminates social technologies for coexistence with the semi-arid ecoregion in surrounding communities.

The caatinga occupies 10% of Brazil’s vast territory and is home to 27 million people. Its vegetation is generally low, with twisted branches and trunks, appearing dead in the dry season and turning green just days after rain. It also features large trees that reach heights of tens of meters.

Maria de Jesus Soares and her older sister, Maria do Desterro Soares, extract seeds from the buriti coconut, a palm tree also known as moriche, found in several parts of Brazil, including its exclusive caatinga biome. Credit: Mario Osava / IPS

Coexistence, instead of fighting against nature

To coexist, rather than fighting droughts, is a guiding principle of the actions that are improving life in Brazil’s poorest region, the Northeast, offering a climate lesson for the country and the world.

This slogan, set in motion by civil society organizations, spurred several social technologies as solutions for water scarcity. Best known is the rainwater harvesting cistern for domestic use, with over 1.2 million units built since 2003.

Cisterns, bio-water (a system that cleans household water for reuse in planting), green septic tanks (a concrete tank with soil, filters, and a banana plant base), solar ovens, and eco-efficient stoves are the five tecghnologies being disseminated.

The AC website reports that 1,481 of these “technologies” have been implemented.

The AC has the RNSA for environmental education and as a source of income through eco-tourism. It works in 40 communities nearby where some 4,000 families live, implementing social technologies and supporting the conservation of the reserve and the entire caatinga.

Headquartered in Fortaleza, the capital of the northeastern state of Ceará, and in Crateús, in the west of that same state near the RNSA, the association stands out from other non-governmental organizations by having this conservation unit of 6,285 hectares of dense forests and four streams.

The green septic tank, also called a biosepitic bed, treats wastewater from toilets with microorganisms that process the waste, leaving the water ready to irrigate crops in the semi-arid region of Northeast Brazil. Credit: Mario Osava / IPS

The caatinga mitigates climate change

“The reserve is an open-air laboratory, where research on fauna, flora, carbon, and water takes place, so we can understand the importance of this area, and of the entire caatinga,” explained Gilson Miranda, a biologist and manager of the RNSA for the Caatinga Association.

In 2015 – 2022, the caatinga was responsible for nearly 40% of the carbon removed from the atmosphere in Brazil, he said, based on a study by São Paulo State University on greenhouse gas capture.

This is because the rapid regreening of the vegetation, an indicator of intense photosynthetic activity when it rains, makes the caatinga a major greenhouse gas sink, different from the Amazon, which is an immense carbon reservoir.

“That is why preserving and conserving the caatinga is strategic in a climate adaptation scenario,” said Miranda in an interview with IPS.

This biome, exclusive to Brazil, covers an area of 844,453 square kilometers.

Water is another wealth of Serra das Almas, which was designated a Private Natural Heritage Reserve (RPPN) in the year 2000.

“The reserve is a great water reservoir. A study we conducted on avoided runoff showed this 6,285-hectare area can retain an astonishing 4.78 billion liters per year,” said Miranda.

Around the springs, there are very tall, green trees that differ from the usual biome. The gameleira (Ficus gomelleira), can reach up to 40 or 50 meters, according to Jair Martins, the tourist guide on hikes along the six trails of Serra das Almas.

This water, retained in the soil by the forests, actually drains slowly. The four springs preserved in the reserve do not dry up, but are unable to sustain year-round the streams that feed the Poti River, whose course passes to the east and north of Serra das Almas.

Nor is this moisture enough to keep the caatinga vegetation green, which is very dry in December, with the green of some shrubs or trees more resistant to water stress.

Maria Clemente da Silva was only able to cultivate her garden when she gained access to bio-water, because the public water supply is limited to three hours a day in Jatobá, a poor community in the Brazilian caatinga. Credit: Mario Osava / IPS

Mitigated drought

In the surroundings of the RNSA, the drought is harsher.

Maria Clemente da Silva, 59, relies on bio-water to supplement the water she uses to irrigate her small garden. The public water supply only operates for two to three hours per day, which is not enough for cultivating vegetables, such as lettuce and onions, or fruit trees like papaya, banana, acerola, orange, and cashew.

About 100 meters behind her house, a forest of tall, very green trees reveals that, with water, the caatinga vegetation gains exuberance. It is the moisture that remained in a low-lying area of a river that practically dried up due to deforestation and fires set to “clear” the land, explained Elisabete de Souza Soares.

Water is the most keenly felt shortage, according to Souza and other women who spoke to IPS and a group of journalism students visiting the Jatobá community, in the municipality of Buriti dos Montes, in the state of Piauí, where the AC’s socio-environmental actions benefit the population and the protection of the RNSA.

All of them received cisterns, the small three-burner ecological stove, and other “technologies” that reduced difficulties in their lives. “Before the cistern, we would fetch water from a public fountain about a kilometer away, carrying cans on our heads,” recalled Souza.

When she was pregnant with her daughter Maria, 11 years ago, she thought about moving away from the community where she had always lived in search of water. “Now I won’t leave here, where I was born,” she said.

The dry vegetation in December, the peak of the annual dry season, displays some resistant shrubs and trees that maintain green patches in the caatinga forests of Brazil’s Northeast region. Credit: Mario Osava / IPS

The Caatinga Association adopted a comprehensive conservation model with broad participation from the local population, including in the economic benefits of work within the RNSA, such as guiding ecotourists and providing other services.

The AC’s approach is always socio-environmental, a main component in protecting the reserve and the caatinga in general, stated Miranda.

Inside the reserve, there is a modest hotel that can accommodate up to 36 people. Local tourism tends to expand due to promotion by the governments of the states of Ceará and Piauí, which share the Serra das Almas Natural Reserve.

The nearby Poti River flows through a 140-kilometer-long canyon and has become a major tourist attraction.

The reserve is a legacy of the US Johnson family, owners of the SC Johnson company, which, because it uses vegetable wax for its furniture cleaning and conservation products, imported carnauba wax, a palm abundant in Ceará, Piauí, and Rio Grande do Norte, another Northeastern state.

In 1998, the leader of the family’s fourth generation, Samuel Johnson, repeated an expedition to Ceará that his father had made in 1935 and decided to establish a Caatinga Conservation Fund, using part of his fortune. This led to the RNSA and the Caatinga Association, composed of environmental specialists in the biome.

By CIVICUS
Dec 29 2025 (IPS)

 
CIVICUS discusses environmental accountability in Zambia with Christian-Geraud Neema, Africa editor at the China Global South Project, an independent journalism initiative that covers and follows China’s activities in global south countries.

Christian-Geraud Neema

A group of 176 Zambian farmers has filed a US$80 billion lawsuit against a Chinese state-owned mining company over a major toxic spill. In February, the collapse of a dam that was supposed to control mining waste released 50 million litres of toxic wastewater into the Kafue River system, killing fish, destroying crops and contaminating water sources for thousands of people. The compensation demand highlights broader questions about mining governance, environmental oversight and corporate accountability.

What’s this lawsuit about, and why are farmers seeking US$80 billion?

The farmers are suing Sino-Metals Leach Zambia, a subsidiary of the Chinese state-owned China Nonferrous Metal Mining Group, because on 18 February, the company’s tailings dam collapsed, releasing an estimated 50 million litres of acidic, toxic wastewater and up to 1.5 million tonnes of waste material into the Kafue River. This led to water pollution affecting communities in Chambishi and Kitwe, far beyond the immediate mining area.

The lawsuit reflects real harm and frustration. From the farmers’ perspective, the company is clearly responsible. Their livelihoods have been destroyed, their land contaminated and their future made uncertain. In that context, seeking accountability through the courts is a rational response.

That said, the US$80 billion figure is likely exaggerated. It shows the absence of credible damage assessments rather than a precise calculation. When no one provides clear data on losses, communities respond by anchoring their claims in worst-case scenarios.

This case also highlights a broader accountability gap. Mining companies should be held responsible, but governments must also be questioned. These projects are approved, inspected and regulated by state authorities. If a dam was unsafe, why was it authorised? Why was oversight insufficient?

It should be noted that Zambia’s legal framework allows communities to bring such cases domestically, which is a significant step forward compared to earlier cases where affected communities had to sue foreign companies in courts abroad.

What caused the toxic spill?

There is no single, uncontested explanation. There were clear structural weaknesses in the tailings dam. Reports from civil society and media suggest the dam was not built to the required standards under Zambian regulations. But the company argues the dam complied with existing standards and that it was encroachment by surrounding communities that weakened the structure over time.

These two narratives are not mutually exclusive. Even if community interactions with the site occurred, the primary responsibility still lies with the company. Mining operations take place in complex social environments, and companies are expected to anticipate these realities and design infrastructure that is robust enough to withstand them. Ultimately, this incident reflects governance and regulatory failures. It was not an isolated accident.

What were the consequences of the spill?

The impacts have been severe and multidimensional. The spill polluted large sections of the Kafue River, reportedly extending over 100 kilometres. It killed large numbers of fish, contaminated riverbeds and disrupted ecosystems. Agriculturally, farmers using river water for irrigation saw their crops destroyed or rendered unsafe. Livestock and soil quality were also affected. Acidic and toxic substances entered water sources used daily for cooking, drinking and washing, and communities were exposed to serious health risks.

What makes the situation particularly troubling is the lack of reliable and independent data. There has been no transparent and comprehensive assessment released by the government, the company or an independent body. This absence has left communities uncertain about long-term environmental damage and health effects, and fuelled emotionally charged debates instead of evidence-based responses.

Was the disaster preventable?

Absolutely. At a technical level, stronger infrastructure, better-quality materials and stricter adherence to safety standards could have significantly reduced the risk. At an operational level, companies know mining sites are rarely isolated, and community proximity, informal access and social dynamics must be factored in when designing and securing tailings dams.

But prevention also depends heavily on governance. Mining companies are profit-driven entities, and in weak governance environments, the temptation to cut costs is high. This is not unique to Chinese firms. The main difference in how companies operate is not their origin but their context: the same companies often operate very differently in countries with weak or strong regulatory oversight. Where rules are enforced, behaviour improves; where oversight is weak, shortcuts become the norm.

The key issue here is enforcement. Zambia has good environmental laws and standards on paper. The problem is their implementation.

Could this case set a precedent?

This case has the potential to strengthen existing accountability mechanisms rather than create a new precedent. Zambia has seen similar cases before, including lawsuits involving western mining companies. What is different now is the increased legal space for communities to act locally.

If successful, the case could reinforce civil society advocacy for responsible mining, greater transparency and stronger enforcement of environmental regulations. It could also raise awareness among communities living near mining sites about their rights and the risks they face.

GET IN TOUCH
Website
Facebook
TikTok
Twitter
YouTube
Christian-Geraud Neema/LinkedIn

SEE ALSO
South Africa: ‘Environmental rights are enforceable and communities have the right to be consulted and taken seriously’ CIVICUS Lens | Interview with The Green Connection 12.Dec.2025
DRC: ‘International demand for coltan is linked to violence in the DRC’ CIVICUS Lens | Interview with Claude Iguma 09.Jul.2025
Ghana: ‘We demand an immediate ban on illegal mining and strict enforcement of environmental laws’ CIVICUS Lens | Interview with Jeremiah Sam 29.Oct.2024

 

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

Credit: Brenton Geach/Gallo Images

By Inés M. Pousadela
MONTEVIDEO, Uruguay, Dec 27 2025 (IPS)

Hours before world leaders gathered in Johannesburg for the 2025 G20 summit in November, hundreds of South African women wearing black lay down in a city park for 15 minutes — one for each woman who loses her life every day to gender-based violence in the country. The striking visual protest was organised by a civil society organisation, Women for Change, which also gathered over a million signatures demanding the government declare gender-based violence (GBV) a national disaster. Hours later, the government acquiesced.

It was a vital victory in a year marked by brutal violence and political backlash. As the dust settles on the 16 Days of Activism against Gender-Based Violence campaign – an annual event that starts on 25 November, International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women, and ends on 10 December, Human Rights Day – the achievement in South Africa stands in contrast to a global landscape of regression.

The numbers that motivated this year’s mobilisations tell a grim story. In 2024, around 4,000 women were victims of femicides in Latin America alone, amounting to nearly 11 gender-related killings a day. Africa has the world’s highest rate at three femicides per 100,000 women, with South Africa’s numbers off the charts.

Throughout 2025, women took to the streets in response to sustained patterns of violence and femicide cases that shocked society. In Argentina, protests erupted in September following the live-streamed torture and killing of three young women by a drug-trafficking gang. In Brazil, tens of thousands mobilised in December after a woman was run over by her ex-boyfriend and dragged across concrete for a kilometre, resulting in the loss of her legs. In Italy, nationwide protests followed the murders of two 22-year-old students in April and the killing of a 14-year-old girl by an older boy whose advances she rejected in May.

These highly visible cases were the tip of the iceberg. Yet they galvanised mobilisations because of decades of civil society groundwork: naming femicide as a distinct phenomenon, fighting for legal recognition and creating the databases many governments still refuse to maintain. This deliberate work of counting the dead has transformed individual tragedies into evidence of systematic violence, making it impossible for states to dismiss each killing as an isolated incident.

This sustained pressure forced some governments to act. In 2025, Spain became a European Union (EU) pioneer in criminalising vicarious violence — violence perpetrated against women through intermediaries, typically children or family members. Its new law, passed in September, followed Mexico’s 2023 recognition of this form of abuse. On 25 November, coinciding with International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women, Italy’s parliament passed a law making femicide a distinct criminal offence punishable by life imprisonment. The achievement is all the more significant given that, until 1981, the Italian penal code still offered leniency for so-called ‘honour killings’.

But progress is fragile. Right-wing governments that frame anti-GBV measures as ideological are moving to dismantle decades of feminist victories. In Argentina, the right-wing government of President Javier Milei has eliminated the Ministry of Women, Genders and Diversity and announced plans to dismantle comprehensive sexuality education and repeal gender parity in electoral lists, among other regressive changes.

In Turkey, which abandoned the Istanbul Convention – the Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence – in 2021, thousands of women defied sweeping protest bans to demand justice over the suspicious death of a 21-year-old university student in October. According to the We Will Stop Femicide Platform, at least 235 women were killed by men between January and October, with an additional 247 women found dead in suspicious circumstances. Yet the right-wing nationalist government declared 2025 to be the ‘Year of the Family’, criticised by activists for reinforcing traditional roles instead of addressing women’s safety.

And in Latvia, parliament voted to withdraw from the Istanbul Convention, barely a year after ratifying it. Right-wing parties argued it promoted ‘gender theories’ under the guise of combating violence, and proceeded despite a petition against it that gathered over 60,000 signatures. The president sent the bill back to parliament for review, but if it passes, Latvia will be the first EU member state to quit the convention.

The 16 Days campaign highlights a fundamental truth: violence against women is not just a social problem but a violation of human rights. Its endpoint on Human Rights Day, established to commemorate the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, asserts that women’s rights are human rights and emphasises the demand that states fulfil their obligations under international law to prevent, investigate and punish GBV.

South Africa’s declaration proves that sustained collective action can force change. Women’s rights activists successfully leveraged the international spotlight of the G20 summit, staging a nationwide shutdown that saw thousands withdraw from paid and unpaid labour, refrain from spending money and lie in silent protest at noon. They forced the crisis onto the global agenda at a moment of unprecedented international attention.

Meeting even the most basic demands — the ability to walk home without fear, leave abusive partners, participate in politics without risking sexual violence, exist online without harassment — requires structural transformation. Women will only find safety when societies cease to view them as objects to possess and control, when those seeking to escape abuse have a path to economic independence, when judicial systems treat violence against women with the seriousness it deserves and when technology companies are held accountable for platforms that enable harassment.

The year revealed more regression than progress. Yet amid growing repression and dwindling resources, women’s movements persisted in documenting violence, supporting survivors, educating the public and advocating for systemic change. Their persistence reflects a clear understanding that real change demands sustained action. States have human rights obligations to protect women’s lives, and women’s movements will continue to insist these obligations are met with the seriousness and resources they require, one protest at a time.

Inés M. Pousadela is CIVICUS Head of Research and Analysis, co-director and writer for CIVICUS Lens and co-author of the State of Civil Society Report. She is also a Professor of Comparative Politics at Universidad ORT Uruguay.

For interviews or more information, please contact research@civicus.org

 

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

By CIVICUS
Dec 26 2025 (IPS)

 
CIVICUS discusses Generation Z-led protests in Bulgaria with Zahari Iankov, senior legal expert at the Bulgarian Centre for Not-for-Profit Law, a civil society organisation that advocates for participation and human rights.

Zahari Iankov

Bulgaria recently experienced its largest protests since the 1990s, driven largely by young people frustrated with corruption and institutional decay. What began as opposition to budget measures quickly escalated into broader demands for systemic change. The prime minister’s resignation has triggered Bulgaria’s seventh election since 2021, but whether this cycle of repeated elections will finally address fundamental questions about institutional integrity, informal power structures and the enduring influence of the oligarchy remains to be seen.

What sparked recent protests?

Bulgaria has been in a prolonged political crisis since 2020, when mass protests first erupted against corruption and state capture. Although they didn’t immediately lead to a resignation, these protests marked the beginning of a cycle of repeated elections and unstable governments. Since 2021, Bulgaria has held several parliamentary elections, and no political settlement has lasted.

The latest protests, which erupted on 1 December, have probably been the largest since the early 1990s, during Bulgaria’s transition from communism to democracy. They were initially sparked by a controversial 2026 budget that raised taxes to fund public sector wages, but while economic concerns played a role, the protests were primarily centres on values. People reacted to the fact that democratic rules were being openly disregarded and governance was increasingly being shaped by informal powers and personal interests.

Several incidents reinforced the perception that institutions were being systematically undermined. One symbolic moment was the treatment of student representatives during parliamentary debates about education, including proposals for mandatory religious education. Members of parliament publicly shamed student council representatives, which many people saw as emblematic of a broader contempt for citizen participation and government accountability.

Other cases reinforced this perception: environmental laws were weakened without debate, key oversight bodies were left inactive for over a year and proposals that threatened freedom of expression were introduced, and only withdrawn following public backlash. Together, these incidents created a sense that institutions were being hollowed out.

The budget acted as a trigger, but public anger had been building for months. Throughout the government’s short mandate, there was a clear pattern of sidelining public participation and bypassing parliamentary procedures. Laws were rushed through committees in seconds, major reforms were proposed without consultation and controversial decisions were taken at moments designed to avoid opposition.

What made these protests different from previous ones?

One striking difference was the speed and scale of the mobilisation. What began as a protest linked to budget concerns quickly turned into huge demonstrations involving tens of thousands of people. Estimates suggest that between 100,000 and 150,000 people gathered in Sofia, the capital, during the largest protest. For such a small country, this was impressive. Also unlike previous mobilisations, these protests spread well beyond Sofia to many cities across the country, something unusual for Bulgaria’s highly centralised political system.

Another important difference was the strong presence of young people, which led to the protests being described as Gen Z protests. While young people also played a role in big protest movements in 2013 and 2020, this time the generational identity was much more visible and explicitly embraced. Young people were central as communicators as well as participants. Social media campaigns, humour and memes played a significant role in spreading information and mobilising support.

Additionally, these protests were not driven by a single political party. Although one party provided logistical support in Sofia, the extent of participation and the geographic spread made clear this was a broad social mobilisation, not a partisan campaign.

What role did organised civil society groups play in sustaining the protests?

There were a couple of civil society groups that were involved in the organisation of protests, but organised civil society’s main role was not in mobilising but in providing crucial long-term support. For years, civil society groups and investigative journalists have documented corruption, challenged harmful laws and mobilised public awareness around environmental and rule-of-law issues.

As traditional media came under increasing control, civil society helped fill the gap by exposing abuses and explaining complex issues in accessible ways. This helped counter the narrative that ‘nothing ever changes’ and empowered people to believe protest could make a difference.

At the same time, attempts by politicians to discredit or intimidate civil society organisations, including proposals resembling laws to stigmatise civil society as foreign agent, underscored how influential civil society has become.

Who are the figures at the centre of public anger, and what do they represent?

The two key figures are Boyko Borissov and Delyan Peevski, who represent two different but deeply entrenched forms of political power. A former mayor of Sofia and prime minister who has dominated Bulgarian politics for over a decade, Borissov retains a loyal voter base despite major scandals, and has repeatedly returned to power through elections. He built his image on strongman rhetoric and visible policing actions.

Peevski is a different figure. Sanctioned under the Magnitsky Act — a US law targeting people involved in corruption and human rights abuses — he has never enjoyed broad public support but wields enormous informal influence. Despite leading a political party, he operates largely behind the scenes. Over the years, he has been linked to deep penetration of the judiciary, influence over regulatory bodies and media control. His role in governance has become increasingly visible despite his party not formally being part of the ruling coalition.

Together, these two figures embody what protesters see as the fundamental problem: a ‘mafia-style’ system of governance, where access, decision-making and protection depend on proximity to powerful individuals rather than transparent institutional processes.

Does the government’s resignation address the underlying problems?

This was a political response, but it does not resolve the structural issues that triggered the protests. Bulgaria’s institutions remain weak, key oversight bodies continue operating with expired mandates and the judiciary continues to face serious credibility problems.

What happens next will depend largely on voter participation and political renewal. Turnout in recent elections has fallen below 40 per cent, undermining any legitimacy claims and making vote-buying and clientelism easier. Mass turnout would significantly reduce the influence of these practices and could be our only hope for real change.

However, lasting change will require action to restore institutional independence, reform the judiciary and ensure regulatory bodies function properly. Otherwise, any new government risks being undermined by the same informal power structures that brought people out onto the streets.

GET IN TOUCH
Website
Facebook
Instagram
LinkedIn
Zahari Iankov/LinkedIn

SEE ALSO
Anti-euro protests continue; arrest of Varna mayor sparks protests CIVICUS Monitor 28.Jul.2025
Unprecedented protests in Bulgaria’s public media CIVICUS Monitor 27.May.2025
Bulgaria: stuck in a loop? CIVICUS Lens 24.Oct.2022

 

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

For Dona Nena, a chocolatier who is central to culinary tourism in Belém, the success of her operations is dependent on the cocoa trees grown organically in Amazonia. But, she says, they are already bearing smaller fruit.

People take part in an anti-corruption protest in Kathmandu, Nepal on 8 September 2025. Credit: Navesh Chitrakar/Reuters via Gallo Images

By Mandeep S.Tiwana
NEW YORK, Dec 24 2025 (IPS)

2025 has been a terrible year for democracy. Just over 7 per cent of the world’s population now live in places where the rights to organise, protest and speak out are generally respected, according to the CIVICUS Monitor, a civil society research partnership that measures civic freedoms around the world. This is a sharp drop from over 14 per cent this time last year.

Civic freedoms underpin healthy democracies, and the consequences of this stifling of civil society are apparent. At the end of the first quarter of the 21st century, the world is experiencing 19th century levels of economic inequality. The wealth of the richest 1 per cent is surging while some 8 per cent of the world’s population – over 670 million people – suffer from chronic hunger. Weapons-producing firms, closely intertwined with political elites, are reaping windfall profits as death and destruction rains down in Gaza, Myanmar, Sudan, Ukraine and many other places. It should surprise no one that the political leaders fomenting these conflicts are also squashing civic freedoms to avert questions about their motivations.

From Lima to Los Angeles, Belgrade to Dar es Salaam and Jenin to Jakarta, far too many people are being denied the agency to shape the decisions that impact their lives. Yet these places have also been the site of significant protests against governments this year. Even as authoritarianism appears to be on the march, people are continuing to pour onto the streets to insist on their freedoms. As we speak people in Sofia in Bulgaria are demonstrating in large numbers against endemic corruption which recently forced the government to resign.

History shows that mass demonstrations can lead to major advances. In the 20th century, people’s mobilisations helped achieve women’s right to vote, liberation of colonised peoples and adoption of civil rights legislation to address race-based discrimination. In the 21st century, advances have been made in marriage equality and other LGBTQI+ rights, and in highlighting the climate crisis and economic inequality through protests. But in 2025, the right to protest, precisely because it can be effective, is under assault by authoritarian leaders. Around the world, the detention of protesters is the number one recorded violation of civic freedoms, closely followed by arbitrary detentions of journalists and human rights defenders who expose corruption and rights violations.

This backsliding is now happening in major established democracies. This year, the CIVICUS Monitor downgraded Argentina, France, Germany, Italy and the USA to an ‘obstructed’ civic space rating, meaning the authorities impose significant constraints on the full enjoyment of fundamental rights. This regression is being driven by anti-rights nationalist and populist forces determined to degrade constitutional checks and balances and advance ballot box majoritarianism that denies minorities a fair say in economic, political and social life.

The push to degrade democracy by anti-rights forces now coming to fruition has been many years in the making. It accelerated this year with the return of Donald Trump. His administration immediately withdrew support to international democracy support programmes and instead built links to politicians responsible for crushing civic freedoms and committing grotesque human rights violations. Trump has laid out of the red carpet to El-Salvador’s Nayib Bukele, Hungary’s Victor Orbán, Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu, Russia’s Vladimir Putin and Saudi Arabia’s Mohammed bin Salman, ushering in a new era of values-free might-is-right diplomacy that threatens to undermine decades of painstaking progress achieved by civil society.

The fallout is clear. Many wealthy democratic governments that traditionally fund civil society activities have significantly reduced their contributions. At the same time, they have linked their remaining support for civil society to narrowly defined strategic military and economic interests. In doing so, they have played directly into the hands of powerful authoritarian states such as China, Egypt, Iran, Nicaragua and Venezuela that seek to discredit domestic calls for accountability. Countries including Ecuador and Zimbabwe have introduced laws to limit the ability of civil society organisations to receive international funding.

All these developments are negatively impacting on civil society efforts for equality, peace and social justice. Yet the story of 2025 is also one of persistent resistance, and some successes. The courage demonstrated by Generation Z protesters has inspired people around the world. In Nepal, protests triggered by a social media ban led to the fall of the government, offering hope for a much-needed political reset. In Kenya, young protesters continued to take to the streets to demand political reform despite state violence. In Moldova, a cash-rich disinformation campaign run by a fugitive oligarch failed to sway the course of the national election away from human rights values. In the USA, the number of people joining the No-Kings protests just keeps on growing.

With over 90 per cent of the world’s population living with the institutional denial of full civic freedoms, anti-rights forces must be feeling pretty smug right now. But democratic dissent is brewing, particularly among Generation Z, denied political and economic opportunities but understanding that another world – one more equal, just, peaceful and environmentally sustainable – is possible. It’s far from game over yet, and even in difficult times, people will demand freedoms – and breakthroughs may be just around the corner.

Mandeep S Tiwana is Secretary General of CIVICUS, the global civil society alliance.

 

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

For the past two years, Samuel Ndungu, a smallholder farmer, has been growing organic food and supplying it to the local market in Githunguri, just outside Nairobi. On his 1.5-hectare farm, Ndungu practices organic farming, which promotes soil fertility through composting and crop rotation and controls pests with natural or biological methods. He has refused […]