Africa

As billions continue to breathe polluted air that causes more than 4.5 million premature deaths every year, according to the United Nations, UN climate experts have highlighted how damaging microscopic smoke particles from wildfires play their part, travelling halfway across the world. Credit: Climate Visuals/Anna Liminowicz. UN News September 2025

By Jan-Gustav Strandenaes
KNAPSTAD, Norway, Sep 22 2025 (IPS)

“We shall have to do more with less” was the summary message from a meeting in Oslo, Norway, this spring (2025), where the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Norway, Espen Barth Eide and Guy Ryder, Under-Secretary-General for Policy at the UN and Chair of UN80, both spoke about UN80 and the necessity to reform the UN.

The UN80 initiative is, according to Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, “a system-wide push to streamline operations, sharpen impact, and reaffirm the UN’s relevance for a rapidly changing world”. “We will come out of this process with a stronger, fit-for-purpose UN, ready for the challenges the future will undoubtedly bring us,”

Ryder has said. The precarious financial situation of the UN family has, however, led many to say that these nice words are euphemisms for a dramatic UN reform, fearing a necessary downscaling of many of its important activities.

This article builds on previous articles on clustering around the Triple Planetary Crisis of pollution (see How Clustering Multilateral Environmental Agreements Can Bring Multiple Benefits to the Environment by Michael Stanley Jones), climate change (see UN 80: Clustering the Climate Change Conventions by Stacey Azores ), and biodiversity loss (see Towards Enhancing Synergies among Biodiversity-Related MEAs: Addressing Fragmentation with Strategic Coordination.

Clustering biodiversity conventions by Hugo-Maria Schally) and most recently, the article on the possibility of clustering the three science bodies (see Better Use of the World’s Expertise in Navigating the Polycrisis by Peter Bridgewater and Rakhyun Kim).

The UN 80 process enables us to look at some of the history of the UN Environment Programme and how to make it more “agile, integrated, and equipped to respond to today’s complex global challenges”. A historic lens is needed, and it would be wise to see if elements of this history can be resurrected and a debate around them can be reenergized to accomplish the goals of the present reform process.

The institutional constraints of UNEP

Where is UNEP in all this? UNEP is a Programme under the UN General Assembly, UNGA, one of the Charter Bodies. As such, any change in UNEP’s structure and status has to be recognised by the UNGA. The UNGA has the power to directly affect UNEP’s work, as well as the outcomes of the UN Environment Assembly, UNEA, even though UNEA is also a body with universal membership.

What was the Global Ministerial Environment Forum?

There is no positive and tangible results without continuity. Since its inception, UNEP has been run by the Governing Council, GC, which consisted of 54 member states elected for a three year period. The GC met in Nairobi every two years, effectively diminishing UNEP’s role as a consistent guardian of environmental issues, at least at the political level.

As environmental problems increased over the years, there was an increasing need for more continuous political decision-making to meet and solve environmental issues, and the Global Ministerial Environment Forum, the GMEF, was established, among others, in order to answer to this challenge.

Conceived as a Special Session, the 6th since the founding of UNEP, the first GMEF took place in the city of Malmoe in Sweden in the year 2000. It was hailed as a success, for several reasons. One notable aspect was that 73 Ministers of Environment attended and engaged in various debates, including exerting political leadership.

Even though 73 member states attended with their environment ministers – the highest ever at the time at an international conference – it is well to remember that the UN then consisted of 189 member states.

A significant outcome document was the Malmoe Declaration, which outlines in no uncertain terms the environmental challenges, that UNEP was the preeminent global organisation on environmental issues and that there is an urgent need for UNEP and all stakeholders to engage and work to safeguard the environment.

UNEP with increasing knowledge in environment, still lacking in authority

Knowledge and understanding of environmental issues grow constantly and makes clear to all its inherent complexity, resulting in new and sometimes divergent environmental themes demanding new political approaches.

On the verge of the 21st Century, and sensing new and dramatically different challenges, the then Secretary General of the UN, Kofi Annan, outlined these challenges in his report to the UN GA in 2000, called “We the peoples: The role of the UN in the 21st Century.” Here, he called for a Millennium Ecosystem Assessment to be delivered. New environmental issues were identified, and the multitude of these issues was another reason for establishing the GMEF in 2000. There was a need to try to develop policy coherence.

The third GMEF was held in Cartagena, Colombia, in February 2002, and nearly 100 Ministers of Environment attended. Again, the presence of Ministers proved advantageous to the deliberations and outcome results. This conference also became a an important informal preparatory meeting for the upcoming World Summit for Sustainable Development, WSSD, to be held later that year in Johannesburg.

The delegates at this GMEF emphasised the importance of this forum, and the proposal to organise a GMEF in odd years and not in Nairobi was tabled and agreed to. Annual high-level conferences on the environment were agreed as a necessity. Another interesting proposal tabled was that membership in the GMEF should be universal, an idea that took ten years to materialise. It was not until Rio+20 in 2012 that universal membership at a UN body dealing with environmental policies, the UNEA, was agreed to.

The 11th Governing Council and Global Ministerial Environment Forum was held in Nusa Dua, Indonesia in 2010. A simultaneous extraordinary Conference of the Parties to the Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm Conventions, three Multilateral Environmental Agreements, was held back-to-back with the GC/GMEF.

The conference had an overarching objective of enhancing cooperation and coordination and improving synergies in multilateral environmental agreements. As one report states, the meeting broke new ground and set an example of resource-saving coherence among MEAs and perhaps even within the UN system.

Without a seemingly proper analysis of the benefit of annual meetings, the GC/GMEF processes were discontinued with the adoption of the UN Environment Assembly, the UNEA, which held its first session in 2014, and the process was back to high level environment meetings every second year. As the UNEAs were to be held every other year, this decision actually lost the continuity which had been established with the GC/GMEF process.

With the increasing environmental challenges, not the least their complexity, maybe the time has now come to reinstitute annual UN environmental conferences and use the model which was established by the GC/GMEF process – every other year in Nairobi, and the intermittent year in a capital of a member state.

Strengthening UNEP and UNEA by re-establishing the GMEF.

If we re-establish the GMEF and combine it with the UNEAs, we would accomplish a continuity of high-level political and policy-oriented meetings for the environment. The UNEA would, if this were to take place, continue as it is presently organised, but the GMEF would be different. Two UN entities would play centre-stage: The MEAs and the Science-Policy Interfaces

UNEP has been designated by the governing bodies of eight MEAs, to provide secretariat functions to those conventions. This host relationship established with UNEP, means that UNEP is providing administrative and financial support for each secretariat to carry out its responsibilities.

UNEP has for a long time been at the forefront of scientific research on environmental issues. Three Science Policy Interface systems have been established and receive support from UNEP.

The oldest is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC established in 1988. The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, the IPBES, is less known to the outer world compared to IPCC. It began functioning in 2014 with a secretariat based in Bonn.

The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Panel on Chemicals, Waste and Pollution, ISP-CWP, is a new, independent intergovernmental body established to strengthen the global science-policy interface. It began its official existence in June this year (2025).

What could the agenda for the Forum be? It would have to complement and support the upcoming UN Environment Assembly. There would also be other overarching thematic priorities – the Triple Planetary Crises, the current Medium-Term Strategy and the Programme of Work.

The GMEF could be a place where the three established clusters of MEAs, focusing on pollution (chemicals and waste), biodiversity, and climate change, could meet to address synergies, gaps, and potential areas for collaboration.

The MEAs could identify relevant work of a common nature that exists between the conventions and explore interlinkages between them. All this could be informed by the first day of a GMEF when the three science bodies could have identified and presented crucial environmental issues to be solved.

As the meeting would take place midway between the HLPF, the outcome report could also deal with the environmental elements of the SDGs to be dealt with by the next HLPF.

This proposed agenda involves clustering around themes of the Triple Planetary Crisis of pollution, biodiversity loss and climate change, ideas, and implementation across science and environmental governance to influence political priorities.

As the GMEF would begin with presentations by the three science bodies outlining urgent issues relating to the Triple Planetary Crises, their presentations could inform the discussions throughout the week but also support any member state in their negotiations at the GMEF as all stakeholders would discuss common problems.

Focus of a systemic nature could be on the inherent inefficiencies in use of financial resources, the MEAs could look at inconsistencies in the international legal systems, they all could discuss functional inefficiencies, but most importantly identify their failures to address interlinkages.

When “forced by a common agenda”, they would all have to focus their priorities on the same themes and thus cluster their input.

An example of an area addressed by the three clusters together could be that of nitrogen, currently under discussion, which exemplifies a cross-cutting theme that could challenge all the UN units mentioned here to explore their approach to addressing it. And if all are assembled in a five-day conference, that could quite possibly happen.

Could such a meeting be financed? The old GMEF was partly financed by the hosting city and country. These cities gave generous grants to the conference, knowing full well that they would earn ten-fold in return as a consequence of participation from 193 member states delegations coming to their city.

The best outcome for UNEP in UN80

UNEP and UNEA lacks proper funding, but perhaps its biggest weakness, which hampers its many efforts to be the preeminent global environment organisation, is UNEP’s lack of authority and political status. This is perhaps the major reason that hampers its efforts to improve its own system.

Substantial improvements in its internal institutional system will always be difficult as long as UNEP is merely a programme under the General Assembly. The GA’s own rules of procedure, its standing in the UN system, and its geographical placement in New York, makes it the key organisational body of the UN, which, by its own position in the UN hierarchy, also makes it a rigid organisation. Whereas UNEP hosts delegations from ministries of the environment, the UNGA delegations are from ministries of foreign affairs.

These ministries address environmental problems in different ways. Whereas foreign offices are among the most important government entities in a country and have, by and large, a generalist understanding and competence on environmental issues, environmental ministries have environmental expertise but are weak in terms of political clout. During the last two decades, environment ministries have also suffered a serious reduction of political influence in several countries, a few have even been closed down.

UN80 can start the process of finishing the work of Klaus Toepfer and Achim Steiner, two former Executive Directors at UNEP, on clustering the biodiversity conventions, and if UNFCCC comes under UNEP, it will provide an opportunity for a cluster on climate change. The creation of a more coordinated and effective science platform will help member states to have the right information and address the environmental issues they raise in a coordinated way.

By focusing on conventions under UNEP management, we gain a more coherent approach, albeit one that does not cover all relevant conventions, but one that will have a greater impact on addressing the Triple Planetary Crisis of pollution, biodiversity loss, and climate change. The proof of concept for the chemicals and waste cluster successfully carried out at the 11th GMEF in 2010 should show us the way.

The re-establishment of the Global Environmental Ministers Forum enables member states at a high level to address the interlinkages, gaps and work programmes of the three established clusters. Wouldn’t it be great to have this ready for 2030 when we will address the future approach to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development? A stronger UNEP has been the vision for many people for a long time. UN80 enables the chance to make that a reality.

Jan-Gustav Strandenaes is a Senior Adviser, Stakeholder Forum. In 2018, he was appointed by the German Government to a peer group assessing its national Sustainability Strategy.

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');  

President Duma Boko congratulates the men's 4x400m relay team for winning gold at the World Athletic Championships.

A child being screened for malnutrition as part of Action Against Hunger’s work in Isiolo County, Kenya. — February 5, 2025. Credit: Abel Gichuru for Action Against Hunger

By Michelle Brown
NEW YORK, Sep 22 2025 (IPS)

As world leaders convene in New York, September 22-30, for the 80th session of the UN General Assembly, they will confront a humanitarian sector in crisis. With only 9% of the $47 billion requested for global humanitarian needs currently funded, the sector faces what UN Emergency Relief Coordinator Tom Fletcher calls “a crisis of morale and legitimacy” alongside devastating funding cuts. So where do we go from here?

The UN’s Humanitarian Reset, launched this past March, represents the most ambitious attempt in decades to transform how we deliver aid. Rather than viewing this as just another round of reform, we must see it as an opportunity to build something fundamentally better: a system that is locally-led, globally supported, and dramatically more efficient.

The Crisis Driving Change

The scale of today’s humanitarian challenge is daunting. Humanitarian needs continue to increase while funding dwindles, forcing impossible ethical choices about which kinds of programs to prioritize and which communities to serve.

Recent cuts to US foreign aid have accelerated this crisis, leaving organizations scrambling to maintain essential services while thousands of humanitarian workers face layoffs.

Critics have claimed that we are a wasteful, divided bureaucracy. Our response must be to demonstrate that we are efficient, united, independent, and saving lives. If this moment of constraint is forcing our sector to confront uncomfortable truths, it also may unleash us to more fully deliver on our promise.

Reimagining Roles for Maximum Impact

The reset’s core insight is that each actor in the humanitarian ecosystem has unique strengths. Rather than competing for the same roles, we should optimize for what each does best.

• UN agencies excel at diplomacy, coordination, and norm-setting. Their relationships with national authorities and convening power are irreplaceable. But direct implementation often isn’t their strength, and their structures can be prohibitively expensive with high overhead costs and complex security requirements.

• International NGOs bring technical expertise, can access hard-to-reach areas, and maintain principled independence. They can bridge global knowledge with local realities, strengthen national systems, and operate in contexts where civic space is restricted.

• Local and national organizations are the frontline responders with deep community knowledge and long-term presence. They understand cultural dynamics, can negotiate access more effectively, and provide the foundation for sustainable systems.
Communities in access-constrained areas have built schools through diaspora funding, negotiated their own security arrangements, and created supply chains that reach areas many international organizations cannot.

This clarification of roles should drive funding decisions.

If the role of UN agencies is focused on norm and standard-defining, coordination, and pass-through, more resources will be available for international, national, and local actors to drive implementation. The goal isn’t to bypass the UN, but to optimize the entire system. Fund UN agencies for diplomatic engagement and coordination. Fund international NGOs for implementation and technical assistance. Fund local organizations for community engagement and sustainable service delivery.

Cash, Data, and Dignity

Three innovations deserve acceleration regardless of funding levels.

Cash-based programming, particularly multi-purpose transfers, exemplifies the reset’s principles. It’s cost-effective, context-sensitive, and upholds recipient dignity while promoting local ownership. We should shift towards cash-transfer programming where possible.

Similarly, better data sharing and early warning systems can dramatically improve targeting and coordination. Donors should continue to fund a more harmonized data collection and data sharing system for better diagnosis, targeting and coordination of needs, reducing duplication while improving effectiveness.

Critically, as the system streamlines, we cannot lose sight of how central protection must be to all of our work. Most humanitarian crises are protection crises, even if they aren’t acknowledged as such. Gender-based violence services, child protection, and civilian safety aren’t add-ons to humanitarian response—they’re foundations that enable all other interventions to succeed.

The Path Forward

The humanitarian reset isn’t about doing less with less; it’s about doing differently with what we have. It’s about moving from a system driven by the money we can raise to one based on greatest need, even more rooted in and responsive to the communities we serve.

As member states discuss UN80 reforms during this General Assembly session, they must resist the temptation to simply cut programs. Instead, they should invest in the transformation needed to make humanitarian aid more efficient and effective. Member states attending UNGA 80 must champion a humanitarian system that measures success not by institutional survival, but by lives saved and communities empowered.

This means supporting innovative funding mechanisms, investing in local capacity, and having the courage to redistribute power from global headquarters to frontline communities. Fundamentally, radical reform requires those with power to give it away.

The choice facing world leaders in New York is clear: continue with a system that struggles to meet growing needs, or embrace a reset that puts communities at the center and optimizes every actor’s unique contribution.

The humanitarian sector’s breaking point can become its transformation moment, but only if we have the courage to truly reset how we work.

Michelle Brown is Associate Director of Advocacy, Action Against Hunger

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');  

Eunice Dumbuya, a young activist in Freetown, Sierra Leone, still remembers being called promiscuous after getting a contraceptive implant a few years ago. She knew the risks of an unplanned pregnancy in her conservative country, so she made a choice. “I had to go with my aunt to the hospital for contraceptives because my mom […]

Kenya make it a clean sweep at the Berlin Marathon with Sabastian Sawe winning the men's race and Rosemary Wanjiru triumphing in the women's.

Friends of the stabbed 21-year-old Kenyan woman recount to the BBC events on the night she went missing.

Charlie Weimers with EU flag and the Sweden Democrat’s party symbol, a bluebell.

By Jan Lundius
STOCKHOLM, Sweden, Sep 19 2025 (IPS)

On September 11, Charlie Weimers, a Swedish Member of the European Parliament and active within the European Conservatives and Reformists Group, rose up during a Parliamentary session and asked for a minute of silence to honour the memory of Charlie Kirk, who the day before had been shot and killed during a political meeting at the Utah Valley University in the U.S.

“Madam President, dear colleagues, the murder of political activist Charlie Kirk, a husband, loving father and patriot has shocked the world. We must strongly condemn political violence and rhetoric that incites violence. Will you stand with me in reflection and prayer in his honour, and I yield the rest of my time for a moment of silence.”

Charlie Weimers began his political career as a member of the Swedish Chrisitan Democrat Party, but later switched to the Sweden Democrats, a nationalist, right-wing populist party, which in spite of efforts to tune it down finds its roots in Neo-Nazi fringe organizations. It is now Sweden’s second largest political party with more than 20 percent of the electorate behind it.

There is nothing wrong in condemning murder political violence and defend freedom of speech, but this cannot hinder us from scrutinizing who is canonized as a victim of radical aggression. Charlie Kirk was 33 years old when he was murdered, leaving a wife and two small children behind. He had admitted that when he in 2012 started Turning Point USA, which eventually would become a rich and powerful organization, he had “no money, no connections and no idea of what I was doing.” At that time, Kirk had dropped out of college and been rejected by The U.S. West Point Military Academy. Nevertheless, he had rhetorical gifts for countering progressive ideas, being sensitive about cultural tensions, and endowed with an aptitude for making provocative declarations that resonated with frustrated college audiences, who followed and agreed with his web postings. Kirk’s frequent college rallies eventually attracted tens of thousands of young voters, as well as the attention and financial support of conservative leaders. President Trump was not wrong when he declared that:

The Great, and even Legendary, Charlie Kirk, is dead. No one understood or had the Heart of the Youth in the United States of America better than Charlie.

After his death Kirk has been praised for showing up at campuses where he talked with anyone who would approach him. Conservative journalists have declared him to be one of the era’s most effective practitioners of persuasion. Kirk’s message was readily embraced by youngsters who accepted his view that Democrats had spent hundreds of billions of dollars on illegal immigrants and foreign nations, while the young “lost generation” of the U.S. had to pinch their pennies, but would not be able to own a home, never marry, and even be forced to work until they died, abused and childless. However, he also gave them hope, telling these unfortunate youngsters that they did not have to stay poor and accept being worse off than their parents. They just had to avoid supporting corrupt political leaders, who were lying to them only to take advantage of their votes. Kirk assured his young audience that it is an undeniable fact that cultural identity is disappearing, while sexual anarchy, crime and decadence reign unabated, private property is a thing of the past, and a ruling “liberal” class controls everything. The White House press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, was probably right when she said that Kirk had inspired millions of young people “to get involved in politics and fight for our nation’s conservative values.”

Kirk allied his Turning Point USA not to any poor radical fringe groups, but to conservative, wealthy donors and influencers. He preached a “Christian Message” well adapted to several members of such groups, declaring that Turning Point USA was dedicated to “recruiting pastors and other church leaders to be active in local and national political issues.”

Kirk fervently defended the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, i.e. “The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed “, declaring that it was worth “a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can keep a Second Amendment which protect our other God-given rights”.

However, Kirk was not happy about the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which outlawed “discrimination based on race, colour, religion, sex, or national origin in employment, education, and public accommodations.” He stated that the Civil Rights Act was a “huge mistake” and declared that if the majority of Americans were asked if they respected the Civil Rights Act the answer would have been a “no”. Adding the caveat that “I could be wrong, but I think I’m right.”

Undoubtedly, there was a racist ingredient in Kirk’s ideology. He did for example state that the concept of white privilege was a myth and a “racist lie”. In October 2021, he launched an Exposing Critical Racism Tour to numerous campuses and other institutions, to “combat racist theories”, by which he meant the propagation of an understanding of the relationships between social conceptions of race and ethnicity, social and political laws and mass media, all of which Kirk considered to be propaganda and an unfounded brainchild of liberal Democrats. He blamed the DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) programmes for threatening U.S. competitiveness and security, even claiming that upon sitting in a plane and realising that the pilot was “Black”, he could not help thinking “’Hey, I hope he’s qualified”.

Like most populist, “patriotic”, European right-wing political parties, not the least the Sweden Democrats, though they nowadays try to hide it more carefully than before, Kirk endorsed the so-called “great replacement theory”. This way of thinking assumes that powerful, nefarious actors, for some obscure reason, are trying to replace an upright indigenous, generally white-skinned population with immigrants of “doubtful” origin. Kirk did not even hesitate to state that Democrats supposedly wanted to make the U.S. “less white”.

Kirk also argued that humans have no significant effect on global climate change and joined antivax activists by, among other statements, calling the mandatory requirements for students to get the COVID-19 vaccine “medical apartheid”. Kirk was outspoken when it came to claim that Trump’s loss in the president elections of 2022 was due to fraud, supported the “stop the steal” movement and denied that the violent attacks on the Capitol were an insurrection.

Opposing political violence and supporting free speech does not mean that you have to sanctify a victim like Charlie Kirik, who after all was a racist and an incendiary agitator against underprivileged groups, as well as he degraded scientists who warned against climate change and vaccine denial. It is not defensible that such a voice, no matter how despicable it might be, is silenced by violence and murder. However, we cannot refrain from pointing out the great harm the kind of agitation Kirk devoted himself to can cause. As an educator, I have often been forced to experience how children suffer from racism and bigotry preached and condoned by influencers like Charlie Kirk. Accordingly, to sanctify such persons and tolerate their prejudiced ideology is hurtful and dangerous.

Furthermore, let us not be fooled by deceitful propaganda trying to convince us that Charlie Kirk’s so called “debates” were neither aggressive, nor mendacious. They were brutally provocative; opponents were shouted down, or belittled. The rhetoric was hateful, contempt was poured out over women, Black people, immigrants and Muslims, queer and trans people. Liberals were branded as enemies, science demeaned. And, yes – Charlie Kirk turned to young people, who felt frustrated, marginalized and despised, telling them that he wanted to give them hope and a will to fight injustice. But at what price? Based on what truth? Incitement to violence and contempt for humanity might be safeguarded in the name of free speech, but it should never be accepted and defended. It must be attacked through an unconstrained press based on facts, a well-founded science, and an unfaltering respect for human rights.

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');  

Luca Zidane, the son of France's World Cup-winning playmaker Zinedine, switches his international allegiance from France to Algeria.

Julia Francisco Martínez stands at the graveside of her husband Juan, a Honduran Indigenous defender who was found murdered in 2015. Credit: Giles Clarke / Global Witness

By Umar Manzoor Shah
LONDON & SRINAGAR, Sep 19 2025 (IPS)

At least 146 land and environmental defenders were murdered or forcibly disappeared in 2024 for standing up against powerful state and corporate interests, according to a new report released by Global Witness.

The findings, published under the title Roots of Resistance, expose a persistent global crisis that has claimed 2,253 lives since 2012, and show that violence against those protecting land, forests, and communities continues with little sign of justice.

Although the 2024 figure is lower than the 196 killings recorded in 2023, Global Witness cautions that this does not represent progress. Instead, it reflects chronic underreporting, difficulties in verifying cases in conflict zones, and a climate of fear that silences victims’ families and communities.

Latin America: The Epicenter of Attacks

The report shows that 82 percent of documented killings took place in Latin America. Colombia once again topped the global list, with 48 killings accounting for nearly a third of all cases worldwide. The victims were mostly community leaders, Indigenous defenders, and small-scale farmers confronting mining, agribusiness, and organized crime.

Despite government pledges of reform, Colombia’s weak state presence in former conflict zones has allowed armed groups and criminal networks to dominate. This has created a deadly environment for activists who resist environmental destruction.

Mexico followed with 19 cases, including 18 killings and one disappearance. It marked the second most lethal year for Mexican defenders in the past decade. Brazil recorded 12 killings, half of them small-scale farmers.

The most alarming rise was seen in Guatemala, where killings spiked from four in 2023 to 20 in 2024, giving the country the highest per capita murder rate for defenders worldwide. This escalation took place despite the election of President Bernardo Arévalo, who had promised to curb corruption and inequality.

“Eighty-two percent of recorded attacks in 2024 were in Latin America, where we have consistently seen the highest proportion of cases for over a decade,” said Laura Furones, Senior Advisor at Global Witness and one of the report’s authors, in an interview with Inter Press Service. “Killings were concentrated in four countries, which together accounted for around 70 percent of the murders: Colombia, Guatemala, Mexico, and Brazil.”

According to Furones, Latin America’s rich natural resources, combined with strong civil society movements and widespread impunity, make it both a hotspot for extraction-related conflicts and for reporting of violence. “High levels of impunity mean there is little disincentive for violence to stop,” she said.

Who Are the Victims?

The report found clear patterns in who is most targeted. In 2024, 45 Indigenous defenders and 45 small-scale farmers were killed or disappeared. Together, they made up nearly two-thirds of all cases.

These killings are closely linked to profit-driven industries. Mining was identified as the deadliest sector, connected to 29 killings. Logging was tied to eight deaths, agribusiness to four. Organized crime was implicated in nearly a third of all attacks, often working with or tolerated by state forces.

State actors themselves, including police and military, were linked to 17 killings. In Colombia, only 5.2 percent of murders of social leaders since 2002 have been resolved in court, leaving the intellectual authors of the crimes almost untouched.
“Impunity fuels this cycle of violence,” the report notes. “Without justice, perpetrators feel emboldened to repeat attacks.”

Documenting Violence in Hostile Environments

Global Witness compiles its data through a systematic process of reviewing public information, analyzing datasets, and collaborating with local and regional organizations in more than 20 countries. Each case must be verified by credible sources with detailed information about the victim and the link to land or environmental defense.

Still, Furones acknowledged that many attacks go undocumented, particularly in authoritarian states, regions with limited civil society, or conflict zones. “These figures are likely underestimates,” she said.

Personal Stories Behind the Numbers

Beyond the statistics, the report highlights individual defenders whose struggles illustrate the human cost of the crisis.

In Nigeria, the Ekuri community has spent decades protecting one of West Africa’s last tropical rainforests. Activists like Louis Friday, Martins Egot, and Odey Oyama face threats from armed loggers and corrupt officials. Oyama was arrested in January 2025 by a masked police squad and charged with “promoting inter-communal war,” a crime that carries a life sentence. He says the charges are retaliation for his conservation work.

In Chile, 72-year-old Mapuche leader Julia Chufil disappeared in November 2024 while fighting to reclaim ancestral land from forestry companies. She had faced harassment and bribery offers for years. Her family, leading the search for her, say authorities have treated them as suspects rather than victims.

In Colombia, campesino leader Jani Silva has been under state protection for over a decade due to death threats tied to her defense of the Perla Amazónica Peasant Reserve. While protection measures have kept her alive, Silva describes them as isolating and burdensome, underscoring the inadequacy of current mechanisms.

Expanding Tactics of Repression

The report stresses that lethal attacks represent only the most visible form of violence. Defenders face a spectrum of threats including harassment, sexual violence, smear campaigns, and criminalization.

“Of particular concern is the rising trend of criminalization, as restrictive laws are increasingly enacted worldwide to make peaceful protest a crime,” Furones said.

She added that toxic anti-defender narratives, combined with Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs), further erode protections.

Authorities in several countries have adopted laws specifically targeting protestors, intensifying crackdowns on land and climate activists. “States are unwilling to protect those who stand up for rights,” Furones said. “Instead, they use the law as a weapon against them.”

A Global Failure of Protection
The report warns that international agreements designed to safeguard defenders are being weakened. Nearly 1,000 defenders have been killed in Latin America since the adoption of the Escazú Agreement in 2018, which was meant to ensure their protection.

Global Witness calls for urgent action from governments and businesses. States must recognize land rights, strengthen laws against corporate abuse, and build effective protection mechanisms. Companies must respect Free, Prior, and Informed Consent, conduct rigorous human rights due diligence, and adopt zero-tolerance policies for attacks on defenders.

Indigenous Peoples are identified as especially vulnerable, living across 90 countries and managing more than a third of Earth’s protected land. Research shows Indigenous and Afro-descendant communities achieve better conservation outcomes than many official protected zones. Yet they often defend their territories with little state support, while their voices are excluded from decision-making.

“Particular protection of Indigenous Peoples requires breaking the cycle of violence,” Furones said. “This means respecting their right to self-determination and ending impunity.”

She cited the recent sentencing of illegal loggers in Peru for the murder of four Indigenous Saweto leaders as a rare but important example of accountability. “It shows the judiciary can play a role, even if justice comes only after a long and painful wait.”

Protection Mechanisms: Lifelines With Limits

State protection measures for defenders vary widely, from providing bulletproof vests and security escorts to emergency relocations. However, most programs are designed for individuals, not communities, despite the collective nature of defenders’ work.

As the case of Jani Silva shows, these measures can protect lives but also isolate defenders from their communities and impose psychological costs. Global Witness calls for expanding and improving protection systems to meet collective needs.

The Road Ahead

The report concludes that defenders remain at the frontline of protecting ecosystems and confronting the climate crisis, yet are increasingly under siege. Without stronger protections and accountability, the risks they face will persist.

Furones stressed that breaking the cycle of violence requires political will, robust legal systems, and corporate responsibility. “Study after study shows Indigenous Peoples and Afro-descendant communities are the best guardians of forests and natural resources,” she said. “Protecting them is not just about human rights; it is also about protecting the planet.”

Furthermore, the Roots of Resistance report  has laid stress on the fact that  while governments and corporations profit from resource extraction, those who safeguard the environment pay with their lives. The global community now faces a choice and that is to strengthen protections and enforce accountability, or allow the cycle of violence to continue unchecked.

IPS UN Bureau Report

 

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

The room at the Swiss Inn Nexus Hotel in Bole was silent but tense as Sunita Narain, one of the world’s most influential environmental voices, fixed her gaze on rows of African journalists, scientists, and policymakers. Her tone was gentle, but the words cut deep. “Us, we are—I call us the ants of the world, […]

Credit: Leonardo Fernandez Viloria/Reuters via Gallo Images

By Inés M. Pousadela
MONTEVIDEO, Uruguay, Sep 19 2025 (IPS)

Thousands of Afghans who fled to the USA when the Taliban took over in August 2021 now face the prospect of deportation to countries they’ve never been to. People who risked everything to escape persecution, often because they helped US forces, now find themselves treated as unwanted cargo under the Trump administration’s anti-migration policy.

Trump’s expanded deportation programme targets an estimated 10 million foreign-born people who live in the USA but lack proper legal documentation. This includes people who entered the country without authorisation, whose visas have expired, who’ve had their asylum claims denied, whose temporary protected status has lapsed, or whose legal status has been revoked or suspended. Within a hundred days of Trump’s inauguration, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) had arrested over 66,000 people and removed over 65,000. Some 200,000 had been deported by August.

But the Trump administration isn’t simply removing undocumented immigrants to their countries of origin. It’s increasingly embracing a particularly cruel tactic: dumping people in distant countries they’ve no connection with. This deportation strategy shows how the US government is willing to flout basic humanitarian principles in pursuit of political goals.

The government has invoked an obscure immigration law to deport people to other countries, offering financial incentives or applying diplomatic pressure to compel states to accept US deportees. Around a dozen have recently accepted such deals, including Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Paraguay in the Americas, and Eswatini, Rwanda, South Sudan and Uganda in Africa. This geographic spread dispels any pretence that the policy is about returning people to transit countries: it’s about finding anyone willing to accept money in exchange for unwanted human cargo.

The programme is nakedly transactional, with rewards taking the form of direct payments, trade concessions, sanctions relief and diplomatic benefits. Uganda signed a formal agreement with the US government amid US sanctions on government officials, suggesting it traded migrant acceptance for improved diplomatic relations and potential sanctions relief. Rwanda’s deal coincided with US-brokered talks over the Democratic Republic of the Congo conflict, indicating that the deportation agreement was being leveraged in unrelated diplomatic negotiations. It’s highly unlikely the US government will criticise the human rights records of repressive states such as El Salvador, Eswatini and Rwanda now it’s struck migration management deals with them.

Human rights flouted

Although the USA has a long history of outsourcing asylum processing, these practices have been taken to another level under Trump. The administration is prepared to deport people to war zones, authoritarian states and directly to prison. These arrangements violate core principles of international law, including the right to seek asylum and the prohibition against returning people to places where they’ll face danger.

A particularly shocking example involves Venezuelan deportees sent to El Salvador’s Terrorism Confinement Centre, an overcrowded jail notorious for human rights abuses. In March, the US government accused 238 Venezuelan men of being gang members based on little more than tattoos and fashion choices to justify their expedited removal to this hellish facility. The administration agreed to pay El Salvador US$6 million to house deportees, effectively buying prison space for people whose only crime was seeking safety in the USA. These deportees were later returned to Venezuela as part of a prisoner swap, raising further questions about the use of migrants as diplomatic pawns.

Trump’s approach isn’t limited to recent arrivals. Unlike previous policies focused on border enforcement, it targets longtime residents – people who’ve spent years building families, careers and community ties.

This has sparked unprecedented resistance. People have mobilised in ways that transcend traditional political divides, with teachers protecting students’ families, employers refusing to cooperate with raids, religious leaders offering sanctuary and neighbourhoods forming mutual aid networks and early warning systems.

In response to ramped-up ICE raids seeking to fulfil arrest quotas of 3,000 people a day, people have protested in cities across the USA. Resistance has been particularly intense in sanctuary cities such as Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, New York and San Francisco – primary targets for federal operations to arrest migrants. Civil society activists have confronted ICE agents, blocked deportation vehicles, protested at airports and launched boycott campaigns against companies profiting from deportations.

The scale of resistance has prompted an unprecedented federal military intervention, with the government illegally deploying over 4,000 national guard troops and 700 marines to Los Angeles.

A choice to be made

Trump’s policies are legitimising xenophobia and racism, poisoning political discourse and polarising society. When it’s the world’s most powerful democracy that treats refugees as tradeable commodities, it sends an unmistakable signal to all the world’s authoritarian leaders: human rights are negotiable.

The USA faces a choice between two different versions of itself. It can continue down the path of transactional cruelty, treating human beings as problems to be exported, empowering authoritarian regimes and undermining international law. Or it can fulfil its humanitarian and human rights obligations, provide safe and legal pathways for migration and help address the root causes that force people to flee their homes.

The USA must suspend all offshore migration management agreements, stop deporting asylum seekers to unsafe countries and countries they have no connection with and restore the principle that seeking safety isn’t a crime but a fundamental human right.

Inés M. Pousadela is CIVICUS Senior Research Advisor, 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');  

United Nations Special Rapporteur Reem Alsalem. Credit: UN Photo/Loey Felipe

By Jennifer Xin-Tsu Lin Levine
UNITED NATIONS, Sep 19 2025 (IPS)

A United Nations report calling for the global abolition of surrogacy has sparked intense debate among experts, with critics arguing that blanket bans could harm the very women the policy aims to protect.

Reem Alsalem, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls, issued a report on violence against women and girls with a specific focus on surrogacy as a form of exploitation. The report, officially titled “The different manifestations of violence against women and girls in the context of surrogacy,” was published on July 14, 2025, and is slated for discussion at the upcoming UN General Assembly session in October.

The report calls surrogacy “direct and exploitative use of a woman’s bodily and reproductive functions for the benefit of others, often resulting in long-lasting harm and in exploitative circumstances.”

It further delves into the danger of surrogacy business models, in particular, which embrace the ambiguity of international law to churn a profit, often at the expense of both the surrogate and the prospective family. Alsalem recommends the abolition of surrogacy and asks member states to “work towards adopting an international legally binding instrument prohibiting all forms of surrogacy.”

One of the largest problems with surrogacy today, according to Senior Lecturer at Swinburne University Jutharat Attawet, is a lack of comprehensive education and legal standards around the practice. This results in social alienation and false conceptions, which worsen exploitation of people who participate in surrogacy—they are not provided adequate resources

Attawet, who specializes in surrogacy healthcare and domestic policy, considers surrogacy itself a beneficial tool for nontraditional family building. However, she acknowledges the steps it has to take to ensure autonomy and respect for surrogates.

Attawet’s research, cited in Alsalem’s report, shows that approximately 1 percent of babies born in Australia are from surrogates, so although the number has doubled over the past decade, doctors are not familiar with the process. Furthermore, legislation is primarily top-down rather than region- or area-specific. Since doctors in places like Australia are “intimidated by the language” surrounding surrogacy due to minimal education, they are less willing to openly engage with the procedures. This pushes families to seek surrogates elsewhere, where laws are less stringent and doctors more comfortable with the procedures.

Another incentive for overseas surrogacy, Attawet says, is lack of national support for surrogacy. Since it does not fulfill the criteria of most healthcare insurance plans, prospective parents often seek a more affordable surrogacy birth internationally. This further contributes to the exploitation both she and Alsalem note in their respective research—international surrogacy is much more difficult to regulate between different countries’ laws and often primarily harms the surrogate and the child, who is less likely to know their birth mother from an international surrogacy.

Alsalem criticized the practice of international surrogacy as an exploitative technique to perpetuate wealth inequality between different countries, but many experts argue that the job is one of the few accessible, well-paying jobs for child-bearing people who need to care for their family full-time. Polina Vlasenko, a researcher whose work was also cited in Alsalem’s report, explained to IPS that international surrogacy in Ukraine and the Republic of Georgia “is the type of job you can combine with being a full-time caretaker of your kid… it still benefits women.”

Vlasenko elaborated, saying that most workers in the surrogacy industry, including intermediaries and clinicians, were women who had some sort of pre-existing connection to the process—often being former surrogates. To ban surrogacy entirely, Vlasenko argues, would merely harm women in all facets of the industry rather than resolving wealth gaps. She said, “this inequality is much deeper than services of surrogacy.”

Social worker and professor at Ohio State University Sharvari Karandikar similarly opposes the Special Rapporteur’s recommendation of abolition. In an interview with IPS, Karandikar explained that “in countries like India, it’s really hard to implement policies in a uniform way, and I think that one needs to have proper oversight of medical professionals and how they’re engaging in surrogate arrangements and medical tourism. Blanket bans do not work.”

She emphasized the dangers of surrogacy without regulation, saying it would only do more harm.

Instead, Karandikar advocates for “the safety, the better communication, more education, more informed choice and decision, more safeguards, better treatment options, and long-term health coverage for women who engage in surrogacy” as “a wonderful way to speak about women’s choices, decisions and their health instead of penalizing anyone.”

However, in order for the global conversation surrounding surrogacy to center around female agency, experts like Vlasenko say the perception of surrogates needs to change. She said, “Reproductive work is not always seen as violence or exploitation when it’s done by women for free at home… surrogate mothers are taking the only work that, in their situation, allows them to fulfill certain responsibilities like childcare and income generation. They think that they’re agents in this process, but society sees them as victims.”

Ultimately, the surrogacy debate reflects broader questions about women’s autonomy, economic inequality and reproductive rights. As Vlasenko noted, addressing the “much deeper inequality” that pushes women to surrogacy may prove more effective than focusing solely on limiting the practice itself.

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

• Loss and Damage at COP30: Indigenous Leaders Challenge Top-Down Finance Models
• UN Mobilizes Amid Cascading Earthquakes in Eastern Afghanistan, Aiming to ‘Build Back Better’

Excerpt:

United Nations Special Rapporteur Reem Alsalem recently released her report on violence against women and girls with a focus on surrogacy, one of the most controversial topics in the medical field.

A selection of the week's best photos from across the African continent and beyond.

A selection of the week's best photos from across the African continent and beyond.

Displaced people from Jabalia, Gaza, live in a destroyed building in downtown Gaza City. Demand action to end escalating Israeli crimes against Palestinians. Credit: UN News

By Human Rights Watch
NEW YORK, Sep 19 2025 (IPS)

World leaders gathering at the United Nations General Assembly from September 22-30, 2025, should commit to protecting the UN from powerful governments seeking to defund and undermine the organization’s capacity to promote human rights and international justice, Human Rights Watch said today.

On the eve of the General Assembly’s annual general debate, world leaders will hold a summit on the situation in Palestine, which French President Emmanuel Macron and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman are expected to preside over.

“Human rights and the UN itself are in the crosshairs of powerful governments to an unprecedented extent,” said Federico Borello, interim executive director of Human Rights Watch. “World leaders should pledge action to ensure the world body has the resources and political support it needs to carry out its lifesaving human rights and humanitarian work around the world – in Gaza, Ukraine, Sudan, Haiti, and elsewhere people are in need.”

Governments should also take action to stop Israel’s escalating atrocities against Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank, Human Rights Watch said. They should condemn and take steps to counter US sanctions against International Criminal Court (ICC) officials, prominent Palestinian organizations, and a UN expert.

They should rally behind institutions like the ICC, which is combating impunity for war crimes and other atrocities in Myanmar, Israel/Palestine, Sudan, Ukraine, and elsewhere around the globe.

World leaders should use the September 22 Palestine conference to publicly commit to action aimed at ending decades of impunity for Israeli authorities’ violations of international humanitarian and human rights law against Palestinians. This summit, a response to the landmark July 2024 advisory opinion by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian Territory, is a continuation of a high-level meeting in July.

That ICJ advisory opinion determined that Israel’s decades-long occupation is unlawful, breaches Palestinians’ right to self-determination, and is marked by serious abuses, including apartheid. At the September 22 conference, France, the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, and others have said they would recognize a Palestinian state.

However, those declarations risk being empty gestures unless states commit to concrete actions to stop Israel’s extermination of Palestinians and expansion of unlawful settlements.

Governments should suspend arms transfers to Israel, ban trade with illegal settlements, and impose targeted sanctions on Israeli officials responsible for ongoing crimes against Palestinians, including crimes against humanity and acts of genocide, Human Rights Watch said. States should also press Hamas and Palestinian armed groups to release all civilian hostages.

The UN is in the throes of an existential financial crisis, largely due to the United States’ refusal to pay its assessed contributions – which countries are obligated to pay – and its cancellation of virtually all US voluntary funding for myriad UN agencies and bodies.

This is undermining UN humanitarian work, as well as human rights investigations in Ukraine, Russia, Sudan, Syria, Israel/Palestine, Democratic Republic of Congo, Afghanistan, Myanmar, North Korea, and elsewhere.

The US is not alone in defaulting on its financial obligations to the UN. China, the UN’s second biggest contributor, has been delaying its payments to the organization’s regular budget and peacekeeping operations. Many other governments are also in arrears.

Wealthy governments in the European Union, UK, Germany, France, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Sweden, and others have followed the US decision to gut its foreign aid programs by further reducing their own foreign aid budgets, exacerbating the UN’s financial troubles.

Governments that care about human rights should pay their assessed contributions in full and on time and increase voluntary contributions to the UN, prioritizing programs that protect human rights and save lives.

In 2023, the US contributed nearly $13 billion in assessed and voluntary contributions to the UN. That figure has dropped to nearly zero this year after Trump ordered a “review” of US contributions to the UN. It remains unclear if, when, and to what extent the US might resume UN funding.

The UN leadership should seek ways to reduce costs while avoiding across-the-board cuts that would disproportionately impact human rights work, which is already chronically underfunded. As the UN leadership presses ahead with a package of cost-cutting proposals as part of its “UN80” initiative, it should ensure that independent investigations of human rights abuses have the necessary resources to continue.

“UN monitoring and investigations can deter abusive governments from committing atrocities against civilians,” said Borello. “Powerful governments seeking to undermine the UN’s human rights and humanitarian programs should be condemned, not emulated. The lives of millions of people around the world depend on it.”

Leaders should press for meaningful action to address dire crises in Sudan and Haiti. In Sudan, civilians are facing famine, sexual violence, and other atrocities. In Haiti, criminal groups are expanding their control, escalating killings and sexual violence, including gang rape, forcing millions into displacement and facing acute food insecurity.

Meanwhile, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has declined to endorse calls from human rights defenders and member states to deploy physical protection missions to Sudan and Haiti.

On February 6, Trump issued an executive order that authorizes asset freezes and entry bans on ICC officials and others supporting the court’s work. The US government has so far imposed sanctions on the court’s prosecutor, his two deputies, six judges, the UN special rapporteur for the Occupied Palestinian Territory Francesca Albanese, as well as three leading Palestinian civil society organizations.

These sanctions are a blatant attack on the rule of law and the international justice system. They aim primarily to thwart the ICC’s ongoing Palestine investigation, including the court’s pending arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant for crimes against humanity and war crimes in Gaza.

UN member states should affirm their support for the ICC’s global mandate and civil society’s critical work, and call on the US government to cancel the sanctions program. Member states should also commit to concrete steps to protect the court from these sanctions, including through legislation like the EU Blocking Statute, which aims to shield European companies from the effects of extraterritorial sanctions.

Member states should further commit to international justice by implementing all of the ICJ’s advisory opinions, including the court’s July opinion calling climate change an existential threat to the planet and arguing that states’ failure to protect the climate triggers legal consequences.

Delegates should urge member states to press ahead with negotiations on an international treaty to prevent and punish crimes against humanity. The treaty will fill a gap in international law that contributes to impunity for egregious acts of murder, torture, enforced disappearance, sexual violence, and persecution, among others, inflicted on civilians around the world.

Horrific, systematic abuses the Taliban have continued committing against women and girls in Afghanistan since retaking power in 2021 exemplify why gender apartheid as a crime against humanity should be included in any eventual treaty on crimes against humanity, Human Rights Watch said.

“The UN and international human rights system are being put to the test,” said Borello. “To be on the right side of history, it’s crucial to push back against powerful governments trying to undermine international norms and demolish avenues for accountability.”

https://www.hrw.org/news/2025/09/17/un-world-leaders-should-commit-to-human-rights-international-justice
https://www.hrw.org/topic/united-nations
https://www.hrw.org/middle-east/north-africa/israel/palestine

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');  

Rwanda will make history when it becomes the first African nation to host cycling's Road World Championships from 21-28 September.

The opening session of the Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing, China, 4 September 1995. UN Photo/Milton Grant. The UN marks 30 years since its members adopted the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action.

By S. Mona Sinha
NEW YORK, Sep 18 2025 (IPS)

On Monday, three decades on from the historic Fourth World Conference on Women, the General Assembly meets to discuss recommitting to, resourcing, and accelerating the implementation of the 1995 Beijing Platform for Action – an historic agreement which mapped the path to achieving gender equality and the empowerment of all women and girls.

This is a critical moment because, despite the considerable progress that’s been made, it is a sobering fact that not a single country has yet fully delivered against those aims. And with reactionary attitudes increasingly to the fore, many of these hard-won gains are, alarmingly, under threat of reversal.

Even where the heart is willing, the slow pace or absence of change is more often than not put down to budgetary or political barriers. Gender equality is important, just not important enough. We have other problems to fix. We’ll get back to it.

But this is incredibly short-sighted.

While achieving gender equality is first and foremost a matter of human rights, it is also one of the surest ways to help address those other problems, leading to more prosperous economies, more resilient communities, and more sustainable, peaceful societies.

This is not just a matter of opinion. The evidence is clear.

Closing gender gaps in education, employment and pay would unleash an unprecedented wave of productivity. In 2015, McKinsey Global Institute (MGI) estimated that equal participation of women in the workforce could add up to $12 trillion to global GDP within 10 years.

That’s more than the economies of Japan, Germany and the UK combined and would have already been achieved if we had acted on it in 2015.

The logic is simple: excluding half of the population from opportunities to explore and achieve their full potential is an extraordinary waste. When women are able to contribute equally, innovation flourishes, productivity rises and household incomes grow. Far from being a drag on resources, equality is a growth multiplier.

Moreover, women’s earnings are more likely to be invested in children’s health, nutrition, and education, breaking intergenerational cycles of poverty. And in agriculture, where women make up nearly half the global workforce, the FAO estimates equal access to resources could boost crop yields by up to 30% and reduce the number of hungry people by more than 100 million.

Perhaps for these reasons, research has shown that the treatment of women is one of the strongest predictors of whether a country is peaceful. Where women’s rights are respected, societies are more stable, less prone to conflict, and more open to cooperation.

Women’s participation in peace processes matters too. Agreements brokered with women at the table are more durable, more inclusive, and more likely to succeed. We have the proof of that as well.

And then there’s the environment. Women and girls, especially in developing countries, are disproportionately affected by climate change. But it’s also true that when included in decision-making, they bring difference-making knowledge and perspectives to the table.

Indeed, a 2019 study in Global Environmental Change showed that countries with more women in parliament adopt more ambitious climate policies and have lower carbon emissions.

Meanwhile, women-led community programmes in forestry and water management have consistently delivered stronger conservation outcomes. In other words, tackling the climate crisis is not only about technology and finance – it’s also about representation.

Taken together, it’s clear that equality drives prosperity, resilience, peace and sustainability. To deny women equal rights and opportunities is not simply unjust, it’s an act of societal self-sabotage.

At Equality Now, we lead the way in driving the legal and systemic change needed to realise this vision of a just and better world. Since our inception in 1992 we have worked with governments, legal bodies, civil society and other partners to help reform 130 discriminatory laws, improving the lives of millions of women and girls, their communities and nations, both now and for generations to come.

We were in Beijing in 1995, and we’ll be in New York this week – where to all in attendance our message is clear:

The world cannot afford to wait. Everyone needs equality now.

S. Mona Sinha is Global Executive Director, Equality Now

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 Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Sep 18 2025 (IPS)

When the high-level meeting of the General Assembly takes place, September 22-30—with over 150 world political leaders in town–the UN will be in a locked down mode with extra tight security.

With a rash of threats and political killings in the US—including an attempted assassination of Donald Trump when he was campaigning for the US presidency in July 2024– the list continues.

Against the backdrop of the killing of a conservative activist Charlie Kirk last week, plus the fire-bombing in early 2025, of the residence of Governor Josh Shapiro in Pennsylvania, and the killings of Minnesota state lawmaker Melissa Hortman and her husband– the UN is predictably taking extra precautionary measures.

Asked at a press conference September 15 about security in the wake of recent events in the United States, UN Spokesperson Stephane Dujarric told reporters: “The security within the UN complex during the General Assembly sessions is as tight, as it can be”.

“We are obviously in close contact with the host country authorities, the US Secret Service, the State Department, and, of course, the NYPD (New York Police Department). They will take the measures they need to take outside”.

Traditionally, diplomats and delegates, do not undergo security checks or walk through metal detectors inside the UN building.

Asked whether there will be new restrictions this year, Dujarric said: “I don’t know”.

The limits on the movements of accredited journalists during the high-level meetings were spelled out September 17 by the UN’s Media Accreditation and Liaison Unit (MALU). The link follows:
https://www.un.org/en/media/accreditation/unga.shtml

Accredited media representatives, including official photographers and videographers, must be escorted by Media Accreditation and Liaison Unit staff at all times in the restricted areas, including the Conference Building and General Assembly Building.

Media pass holders are NOT permitted on the second floor of the Conference Building or General Assembly Building.

But going down memory lane, there were several lapses in security in a bygone era, resulting in a bazooka terrorist attack against the Secretariat building back in 1964—and the only such attack in the history of the UN.

But last year, the UN security, conscious on the high-tech weapons now deployed in military conflicts, had a sign outside the building declaring the UN a “NO DRONE ZONE.”

Ernesto “Che” Guevara, Minister of Industries of Cuba, addresses the General Assembly on Dec. 11, 1964. Credit: UN Photo/TC

The streets next week – as in previous years — will be littered with scores of police officers, US Secret Service personnel, UN security officers, the New York Police Department (NYPD), bomb-sniffing dogs, road closures — and a stand-by ambulance in the UN campus ready to cope with any medical emergencies.

In previous years, the Secret Service also had an official chaplain ready to perform last rites in case of any political assassinations in the UN premises.

Meanwhile, hundreds of UN staffers and journalists are double and triple-checked for their photo IDs, reminiscent of security at the Pentagon and the CIA headquarters (where a visitor ID is geared to automatically change colour, if you overstay your visit).

Still, back in 1964, perhaps with relatively less security, the UN building came under a terrorist attack — perhaps for the first time in the history of the world body — from a mis-guided rocket launcher.

When the politically-charismatic Ernesto Che Guevara, once second-in-command to Cuban leader Fidel Castro, was at the United Nations to address the General Assembly sessions in 1964, the U.N. headquarters came under fire – literally.

The speech by the Argentine-born Marxist revolutionary was momentarily drowned by the sound of an explosion.

The anti-Castro forces in the United States, backed by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), had mounted an insidious campaign to stop Che Guevara from speaking.

A 3.5-inch bazooka was fired at the 39-storeyed Secretariat building by the East River while a boisterous anti-Castro, anti-Che Guevara demonstration was taking place outside the UN building.

According to Wikipedia, the bazooka is the common name for a man-portable recoilless anti-tank rocket launcher, widely deployed by the US army, especially during World War II.

But the rocket launcher – which was apparently not as sophisticated as today’s shoulder-fired missiles and rocket-propelled grenades – missed its target, rattled windows, and fell into the river about 200 yards from the building.

One newspaper report described the attack as “one of the wildest episodes since the United Nations moved into its East River headquarters in 1952.”

As longtime U.N. staffers would recall, the failed bombing of the U.N. building took place when Che Guevara launched a blistering attack on U.S. foreign policy and denounced a proposed de-nuclearization pact for the Western hemisphere.

After his Assembly speech, Che Guevara was asked about the attack aimed at him. “The explosion has given the whole thing more flavor,” he joked, as he chomped on his Cuban cigar, during a press conference.

When he was told by a reporter that the New York City police had nabbed a woman, described as an anti-Castro Cuban exile, who had pulled out a hunting knife and jumped over the UN wall, intending to kill him, Che Guevara said: “It is better to be killed by a woman with a knife than by a man with a gun.”

A security officer once recalled an incident where the prime minister from an African country, addressing the General Assembly, was heckled by a group of African students.

As is usual with hecklers, the boisterous group was taken off the visitor’s gallery, grilled, photographer and banned from entering the UN premises.

But about five years later, one of the hecklers returned to the UN —this time, as foreign minister of his country, and addressed the world body.

Meanwhile, Sri Lanka’s Foreign Minister ACS Hameed had one of his memorable moments when Krishna Vaikunthavasan, a London-based lawyer, campaigning for a separate Tamil state, surreptitiously gate-crashed into the UN and tried to upstage Hameed by walking onto the podium of the General Assembly hall and momentarily took the speaker’s slot—at a time when security was lax.

The incident, perhaps a rarity in the history of the UN, saw the intruder unleashing a diatribe against a member state accusing it of genocide and lambasting the government for committing war crimes against the Tamils fighting for a separate state in northern Sri Lanka.

When the president of the Assembly realized he had an interloper on his hands, he cut off the mike and summoned security guards who bodily ejected him from the hall and banned him from the UN premises. And as Hameed walked up to the podium, there was pin drop silence in the Assembly Hall.

As a member of the Sri Lanka delegation at that time, I was seated behind Hameed. But the unflappable Hameed, unprompted by any of his delegates, produced a riveting punchline: “Mr President”, he said “I want to thank the previous speaker for keeping his speech short,” he said, as the Assembly, known to suffer longwinded speeches, broke into peals of laughter.

The intruder was in effect upstaged by the Foreign Minister.

This article includes excerpts from a book on the United Nations titled “No Comment – and Don’t Quote Me on That” authored by Thalif Deen and available on Amazon. The link to Amazon via the author’s website follows: https://www.rodericgrigson.com/no-comment-by-thalif-deen/

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');  

Banner headlines and flawed interpretations of Nepal's protests have characterized media coverage. Graphic: IPS

By Diwash Gahatraj and Chandrani Sinha
KATHMANDU & NEW DELHI, Sep 18 2025 (IPS)

Claims that Rajyalaxmi Chitrakar, wife of former Nepali Prime Minister Jhala Nath Khanal, was burned alive in her home—fake. The reports of an angry mob destroying and vandalizing the Pashupatinath Temple—fake. Allegations that protesters were demanding a Hindu nation in Nepal—fake. As Kathmandu and other Nepali cities erupted in unrest last week, the fire of fake news spread just as fiercely across Nepal and into neighboring India and the rest of the world.

These sensational claims, widely circulated during Nepal’s recent unrest, proved to be misinformation. Driven by various actors and amplified by sections of Indian and international media, the stories dominated headlines, prime-time debates, and viral reels on Instagram, TikTok, and other platforms—framing the movement as a “Gen Z protest” over a social media ban.

In reality, Nepal’s youth were rallying against something far deeper: decades of entrenched corruption and a demand for genuine accountability from those in power.

On a sunny September morning, Nepal’s Generation Z poured into the streets of Kathmandu in what would become the country’s most significant youth uprising in decades. What began as peaceful demonstrations demanding jobs, government accountability, and digital freedoms soon swelled into a nationwide revolt that ultimately toppled Prime Minister K.P. Sharma Oli. The protests turned deadly on September 8, 2025, when police opened fire on demonstrators, killing at least 19 people on the first day alone, with hundreds more injured. The unrest spread rapidly from Kathmandu to major cities, including Pokhara, Biratnagar, Butwal, Bhairahawa, and Bharatpur, as young Nepalis rallied against corruption and a sweeping social media ban.

The crisis reached its peak when protesters stormed and set fire to the parliament building, forcing Oli’s resignation and prompting the military to take control of the streets. The political upheaval culminated in the appointment of Nepal’s first female prime minister, former Chief Justice Sushila Karki, as interim leader.

As the dust settles on one of South Asia’s most dramatic youth-led revolutions, the full extent of the casualties and destruction across Nepal continues to emerge, with the latest reports indicating at least 72 deaths and at least 2,113 injured nationwide.

Flames engulf the Nepal Supreme Court building in Kathmandu. Credit: Barsha Shah/IPS

Chaos of Misinformation

Amid the swirl of rumors and misinformation during the protests, one story that shocked the people was that of Rajyalaxmi Chitrakar, wife of former Prime Minister Jhala Nath Khanal. News started circulating that she was burnt to death inside her house. The false report spread fast, picked up by big YouTubers like Dhruv Rathee and even reported by the Indian daily Times of India, amplifying the claim to millions. “In reality, she had suffered serious burn injuries during an attack and was taken to Kirtipur Burn Hospital in critical condition—but she is alive,” said Rohit Dahal, a Gen Z member and close observer of the movement.

Later, Indian fact-checking outlet Alt News published a story debunking the misinformation.

Initially, many media outlets reshaped the protest’s narrative, reducing it to a youth backlash against the social media ban. Kathmandu-based freelance journalist, researcher and fact-checker Deepak Adhikari says the movement started with young people sharing videos contrasting the lavish lifestyles of politicians’ children, also called ‘Nepo Kids,’ with the daily struggles of ordinary citizens but soon became a major flashpoint for misinformation.

“The most common falsehoods were claims of attacks on politicians and their properties and rumors that leaders were fleeing the country. While some of this misleading content originated on Nepali social media, Indian television channels and users amplified it, turning it into a much bigger problem,” says Adhikari, who heads Nepal Check, a fact-checking platform dedicated to exposing misinformation and protecting public discourse.

Adhikari adds that unfounded claims about sacred sites also went viral. On September 9, a Facebook page called Corporate Bazaar posted a video claiming protesters had reached Pashupatinath Temple and attempted vandalism. The clip showed people climbing the temple gate—but a fact-check later revealed it was originally uploaded nearly two months earlier by a TikTok user during the Vatsaleshwori Jatra festival. YouTubers also amplified such rumors, Adhikari shares. For instance, U.S.-based Nepali creator Tanka Dahal claimed police had detained 32 children inside Nepal’s parliament, fueling even more dramatic—and false—claims that the children had been killed there.

Indian Inputs

As Nepal’s youth fought for their future, Indian broadcasters and social media influencers reframed the movement. Dainik Jagaran, a popular news outlet, ran a front-page story claiming the Gen Z protests were demanding a Hindu Rashtra. This became a clear example of how misinformation can hijack a movement. While Nepal has seen pro-monarchy demonstrations in the past, calling for the reversal of the country’s secular status, the current protests did not include such demands. Instead, the Gen Z movement focused on highlighting the country’s stark wealth gap, rampant nepotism, and a migration crisis that forces nearly one in 10 Nepalis to work abroad. Politicians’ children flaunt luxury while most citizens struggle to make ends meet.

Asked how Indian media and social media users amplified false narratives about Nepal’s protests, BOOM Live deputy editor Karen Rebelo explained that large-scale anti-government movements often attract misinformation, especially when they draw attention beyond national borders.

“Misinformation thrives on uncertainty. In the vacuum created by incomplete reporting, people either invent stories or recycle old information to go viral,” she said.

Rebelo noted that social media determines who controls the narrative—authorities, protesters, or other actors. In Nepal’s case, many Indian outlets misreported the protests as solely a reaction to the social media ban. In reality, Gen Z demonstrators were protesting systemic corruption, nepotism, and inequality, with the ban only highlighting deeper frustrations.

Rebelo also pointed out how some right-wing outlets framed the protests as efforts to restore the monarchy or establish a Hindu nation—narratives that misrepresented the genuine concerns of Nepali youth. “These stories were amplified online and distorted what was actually happening on the ground,” she said.

Similarly, one of the crucial groups part of the Gen Z protest is Hami Nepal, a non-profit dedicated to supporting communities and individuals in need. According to the Nepal Times, “The group played a central role in guiding the demonstrations, using its Instagram and Discord platforms to circulate protest information and share guidelines.

Interestingly, the group’s leader, Sudan Gurung, became another victim of misinformation. As Nepal’s Gen Z protests gained momentum, misinformation quickly complicated the story. Upendra Mani Pradhan, a journalist and political analyst based in Darjeeling and editor-at-large at The Darjeeling Chronicle, pointed to this case.

“A major gaffe that almost painted the Gen Z revolution as ‘India-sponsored was the case of Sudan Gurung,” Pradhan said. He explained that Indian news channels—News18 and Zee News—published photos of Sudhan Gurung from Darjeeling, claiming he was a key architect of the Gen Z movement and leader of the Hami Nepal group. “The problem was both outlets, perhaps in their rush to report, failed to do their due diligence. They typed ‘Sudhan Gurung activist’ and not ‘Sudan Gurung, Nepal’ and used the first image they found online,” Pradhan said.

Coincidentally, Sudhan Gurung from Darjeeling is also an anti-corruption activist. He was assaulted a month earlier, allegedly by  political goons in the Darjeeling hills of India, for exposing the Teachers’ Recruitment scam in the Gorkhaland Territorial Administration.

Newspaper The Telegraph, published from Kolkata, wrote about this confusion and the backlash faced by the Nepali Sudan, with many questioning his credibility.

Tensions over media coverage of the protests spilled into a visible backlash against Indian journalists. On September 11, an Indian reporter was reportedly manhandled by protesters chanting anti-India slogans.

“It is very unfortunate that the journalist had to face this,” says Rebelo. “But this backlash did not come out of nowhere. Reckless reporting and misinformation by some Indian media outlets created the anger. We could have covered the story with much more care and responsibility.”

Rebelo highlighted a deeper issue, saying the incident reflects how little many in India understand their neighboring countries. “This lack of nuance makes misinformation even more damaging,” she added, noting that sensational reporting often worsens the situation.

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

• Nepal’s Gen Z protest: How Fake News Tried to Rewrite a Revolution

Excerpt:

Driven by various actors and amplified by sections of Indian and international media, the Nepal protest stories dominated headlines, prime-time debates, and viral reels on Instagram, TikTok, and other platforms—framing the movement as a “Gen Z protest” over a social media ban. In reality, Nepal’s youth were rallying against something far deeper: decades of entrenched corruption and a demand for genuine accountability from those in power.

Real Oviedo midfielder Kwasi Sibo is determined to solidify his place in the senior national team after an impressive debut for the Black Stars. The 25-year-old earned a late call-up for Ghana rsquo;s Matchday 8 fixtures against Mali in the 2026 World Cup qualifiers at Accra Sports Stadium earlier this month and quickly made his mark with .