European Union

As androids edge closer to reshaping how we work, interact, and manage conflict and resources, the absence of clear regulations leaves human rights, jobs, and social bonds unprotected. Credit: Shutterstock

By Joseph Chamie
PORTLAND, USA, Sep 23 2025 (IPS)

Despite anxieties, concerns, and warnings, androids or humanoid robots that rely on generative artificial intelligence (GAI) and advanced robotics are increasingly being integrated into the modern lives of human populations. This integration raises serious challenges regarding humanity’s future in an era where androids are emerging rapidly.

Some have expressed concerns that GAI and robots are embedding and intensifying existing societal biases, stereotypes, misogyny, and discrimination in the development of these new technologies.

Soon, androids are expected to change the nature of work, social interactions, conflict resolution, and resource management. However, guidelines, regulations, and protocols for their usage and protecting human rights, employment, and social relationships have not been established yet.

 

Growth

In response to the increasing need for automation in various sectors of society, coupled with declining production costs and increasing corporate investments, the use of androids is evolving rapidly. Breakthroughs in generative artificial intelligence have accelerated the development of androids.

At the start of the 21st century, the world’s population of humans was about 6.2 billion and, except in science fiction novels and movies, androids were essentially non-existent. By 2025, the world’s human population had increased to 8.2 billion, with the number of androids estimated to have grown to about 10 thousand.

By 2050, the global population of humans and androids is projected to reach 9.2 billion and 1 billion, respectively (Table 1).

Source: United Nations and Morgan Stanley.

With many countries facing demographic decline and population ageing, coupled with opposition to immigration in most destination countries, many governments, industries, and organizations are increasingly turning to technologies that incorporate generative artificial intelligence and advanced robotics.

The growth of androids is being driven by several factors, including substantial financial investments, decreasing production costs, and intense competition among countries in the humanoid market. Androids are increasingly being utilized in education, entertainment, healthcare, manufacturing, and household applications.

 

Reactions

The reactions of human populations to androids vary considerably. Many people have mixed feelings toward androids with artificial intelligence but see further developments as “inevitable”.

Although many people use artificial intelligence enabled technologies daily, they fear androids will lead to job displacement, rising unemployment, misuse, abuse, intrusive surveillance, and loss of human connection.

The increasing presence of androids is heightening competition for jobs in the labor market, especially among recent college graduates. This development is potentially leading to widespread unemployment, greater dependence on emerging technologies, and a significant rise in wealth inequality.

The reactions of human populations to artificial intelligence (AI) vary significantly across countries. A survey of views towards AI among 21 countries found significant differences between more developed and less developed countries.

While most of the public in less developed countries, like Brazil, China, and India, had positive views about AI, in more developed countries, like Germany, Japan, and the US, 40% or less of the public had positive views about artificial intelligence (Figure 1).

 

Source: Visual Capitalist.

 

Another survey of G7 countries in 2024 reported that 80% of the respondents feared androids would take away jobs, while 70% believed androids would dominate social interactions.

Furthermore, 60% of the respondents in the survey were uncomfortable with androids and preferred them not to resemble humans. This preference is believed to be partly due to the “uncanny valley” effect, which refers to the eerie or unsettling feeling some people experience in response to humanoid robots and lifelike computer-generated characters (Figure 2).

 

Source: Euronews.

 

Advancements

Further advances in the fields of robotics and GAI have also led to the emergence of Socibots. These androids are designed to be social robots. Utilizing GAI and advanced robotics, they are intended to function as an individual’s friend and offer companionship.

International Gallup surveys have found that approximately one-fifth of the global population experienced loneliness “a lot of the day yesterday”. The World Health Organization (WHO) also reports that social isolation and loneliness affect over one billion people worldwide.

Without proper regulations and guardrails focusing on safety, fairness, and basic human rights, it is uncertain how androids can integrate into human populations without posing risks to human wellbeing and the future of humanity

Equipped with sensors and GAI, Socibots are designed to interact and communicate with humans using social behaviors. They are intended to be companions, educators, and assistants, and are expected to be used in hospitals, schools, and homes as their capabilities improve.

Socibots are becoming more expressive, emotionally intelligent, and personable, specifically designed to be a person’s friend. Companies are investing billions of dollars into developing Socibots that can remember individuals, understand their emotions, and engage in natural conversation.

In contrast to Socibots, warbots are robots, unmanned vehicles or devices designed for military operations and warfare. These warbots are autonomous or remote-controlled mobile robots intended for military applications

Military and security forces around the world are currently utilizing autonomous weapons systems, or warbots, which can identify and attack targets with varying degrees of human oversight. These systems are rapidly advancing with the progress of generative artificial intelligence.

Although autonomous “killer robots” capable of selecting and engaging targets without human intervention are in development, they are not yet widely deployed on the battlefield. There is a growing focus on increasing the autonomy of warbots to operate independently and behind enemy lines.

 

Concerns

Over 120 countries and various organizations, such as Human Rights Watch and the Campaign to Stop Killer Robots, have called for an international ban on the development and use of autonomous warbots that can select and attack targets without human control.

However, some governments believe that an international ban is unnecessary. They maintain autonomous robotics could save the lives of soldiers who might otherwise be killed on the battlefield. They also stress that most military robots are tele-operated and unarmed, with many used for reconnaissance, surveillance, sniper detection, and neutralizing explosive devices.

Some individuals suffer from robophobia, an anxiety disorder characterized by an intense fear of androids and robots with generative artificial intelligence. Many of these individuals view the increasing presence of humanoid robots as creepy, hazardous, and a menace to society.

The increasing presence of androids is heightening competition for jobs in the labor market, replacing many human jobs, potentially leading to widespread unemployment, greater dependence on emerging technologies, and a significant rise in wealth inequality. Some individuals are concerned about the potential for social isolation, reliance, and loss of human connection as androids take on roles as companions and service providers.

The global efforts towards advancements in generative artificial intelligence are demanding substantial amounts of electricity. Many billions of dollars are reportedly flowing into the data centers needed to power artificial intelligence. The International Energy Agency projects that by 2030, data centers will require slightly more energy than Japan consumes today.

However, others, especially those benefiting financially, downplay the rising concerns and emphasize the potential benefits of androids. These benefits include increased efficiency, additional labor, higher productivity, business opportunities, enhanced safety, entertainment, personal help, and companionship.

Despite notable advancements, some observers have cautioned about the “humanoid hype”. They note that robots are not acquiring real-world skills as quickly as AI chatbots are gaining language fluency. They expect many more decades of research and development in robotics will be needed before androids can perform these necessary skills.

Some individuals, often referred to as doomsayers, have expressed concerns about the risks involved in the rapid growth of GAI, particularly warning about its potential for disruption and human manipulation.

The development of powerful generative artificial intelligence systems may eventually surpass human intelligence, reach singularity, and evade human control. Experts caution that this alarming progression could lead to catastrophic consequences for human populations.

 

Conclusions

Recent advancements in generative artificial intelligence and robotics have led to an increase in the introduction of androids into modern society. The emergence of androids presents significant challenges for human populations, especially concerning humanity’s future in a world dominated by generative artificial intelligence and humanlike robotics.

While some see further developments as inevitable, there is concern that future androids, possibly arriving within the next five years, could become excessively intrusive, disruptive, and replace many human jobs, particularly entry-level jobs in fields such as law, finance and consulting. Some have issued warnings about the rapidly expanding influence of robotics and generative artificial intelligence, approaching the likely scenario with caution rather than enthusiasm.

Additionally, there are concerns about potential social isolation, dependency, and a lack of human connection as androids take on roles as companions and service providers. However, some, particularly those with financial investments, downplay these concerns and emphasize the advantages and benefits of androids.

Without proper regulations and guardrails focusing on safety, fairness, and basic human rights, it is uncertain how androids can integrate into human populations without posing risks to human wellbeing and the future of humanity. It is also unclear how individuals, especially children, will react to humanoid robots with advanced generative artificial intelligence offering assistance and making contributions.

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

 

To prevent abusive practices against trainees, the Employment Committee wants traineeship contracts with clear provisions on pay, duration and social protection.
Committee on Employment and Social Affairs

Source : © European Union, 2025 - EP

To prevent abusive practices against trainees, the Employment Committee wants traineeship contracts with clear provisions on pay, duration and social protection.
Committee on Employment and Social Affairs

Source : © European Union, 2025 - EP

The EU and Indonesia have concluded today trade and investment deals that should boost EU export to the region, while ensuring environmental and social standards.
Committee on International Trade

Source : © European Union, 2025 - EP

The EU and Indonesia have concluded today trade and investment deals that should boost EU export to the region, while ensuring environmental and social standards.
Committee on International Trade

Source : © European Union, 2025 - EP

ENTWURF EINES BERICHTS über Menschenrechte und Demokratie in der Welt und die Politik der Europäischen Union in diesem Bereich – Jahresbericht 2025
Ausschuss für auswärtige Angelegenheiten
Francisco Assis

Quelle : © Europäische Union, 2025 - EP

Dauer des Videos : 85'

Haftungsausschluss : Die Verdolmetschung der Debatten soll die Kommunikation erleichtern, sie stellt jedoch keine authentische Aufzeichnung der Debatten dar. Authentisch sind nur die Originalfassungen der Reden bzw. ihre überprüften schriftlichen Übersetzungen.
Quelle : © Europäische Union, 2025 - EP

ENTWURF EINER STELLUNGNAHME zu dem Vorschlag für eine Verordnung des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates zur Änderung der Verordnung (EU) 2024/1348 in Bezug auf die Erstellung einer Liste sicherer Herkunftsländer auf Unionsebene
Ausschuss für auswärtige Angelegenheiten
Marco Tarquinio

Quelle : © Europäische Union, 2025 - EP

By CIVICUS
Sep 23 2025 (IPS)

CIVICUS discusses Peru’s new amnesty law with Nadia Ramos Serrano, founder and researcher at the Leadership Centre for Women of the Americas, a civil society organisation working on democratic development and the role of women in politics.

Nadia Ramos Serrano

In August, the Peruvian government passed a controversial amnesty law that benefits military personnel, police officers and members of self-defence organisations accused of committing human rights violations during Peru’s internal armed conflict from 1980 to 2000. The law affects the search for justice for some 69,000 victims and has drawn national and international condemnation for institutionalising impunity.

What does the amnesty law establish?

The amnesty law exonerates from criminal responsibility members of the armed forces, the national police and self-defence committees who have been prosecuted and sometimes convicted for crimes committed during the internal armed conflict. Although in theory the law excludes crimes of corruption and terrorism, in practice it could benefit people involved in serious human rights violations including extrajudicial executions, enforced disappearances and torture.

The law re-victimises the victims. After over three decades of struggle, the state tells them that those who murdered and disappeared their relatives or subjected them to torture will not be punished and may be released. It is the state again causing harm rather than providing redress.

The law perpetuates impunity under the pretext of pacification and consolidates structural discrimination. The majority of victims were Indigenous Aymara and Quechua peasants, historically excluded groups. Relatives and victims feel the state is again abandoning them to protect the powerful, fuelling frustration, political disaffection and lack of trust in the system.

Does the new law comply with national and international law?

It doesn’t. The state cannot pardon itself for violating human rights: justice is not negotiable. This law seeks to normalise impunity and violates the principle of equality before the law. It weakens accountability and sends the dangerous message that those in power can violate fundamental rights and face no consequences.

This contravenes international law. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) has established that amnesty cannot be granted for crimes against humanity. One example is the case of Barrios Altos versus Peru, where the court condemned the Peruvian state for murdering 15 people and seriously injuring four others in 1991. The court has also declared that amnesty laws that seek to prevent the investigation and punishment of serious human rights violations are incompatible with the American Convention on Human Rights.

What has civil society’s response been?

Civil society has responded firmly. Academic institutions, citizen movements, family associations, human rights organisations and victims’ groups have rejected the law, which they consider a serious setback for struggles for justice and memory. The National Human Rights Coordination, alongside feminist and youth groups, have organised sit-ins, published statements and run public campaigns to denounce impunity.

The wounds of the conflict remain open. While some insist on focusing exclusively on the fight against terrorism, rendering state crimes invisible, thousands of families continue to wait for justice. Most of those responsible have never been brought to trial and over 20,000 people are still missing. For their families, this law reinforces the lack of justice and prolongs a mourning process that has already lasted for decades.

How does this situation compare with other transitional justice processes in the region?

Peru is experiencing a setback, while the regional trend is of progress in transitional justice processes. Argentina, for example, repealed laws that prevented those responsible for crimes against humanity committed during dictatorship from being tried, and hundreds of military personnel have been convicted as a result. Chile implemented policies of reparation and held trials against some people responsible for human rights violations. Colombia, with the creation of the Special Jurisdiction for Peace as part of the peace agreement with FARC guerrillas, has also shown it is possible to seek justice and reconciliation without resorting to blanket amnesties.

The international community has reacted strongly to Peru’s setback. The IACtHR issued an urgent resolution reminding the state it cannot apply amnesties in cases of crimes against humanity. The United Nations and organisations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have pointed out the law violates basic principles of international law, and foreign governments and human rights experts have warned about the deterioration of the rule of law in Peru.

GET IN TOUCH
Facebook
Nadia Ramos/Instagram
Nadia Ramos/LinkedIn
Nadia Ramos/Twitter

SEE ALSO
Uruguay: ‘Truth and justice have no statute of limitations; the state must assume its responsibility’ CIVICUS Lens | Interview with Graciela Montes de Oca 04.Jun.2025
The disappeared: Mexico’s industrial-scale human rights crisis CIVICUS Lens 22.Apr.2025
Mexico: one step closer to justice for the missing 43? CIVICUS Lens 31.Aug.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');  

By Mandeep S.Tiwana
NEW YORK, Sep 23 2025 (IPS)

No leader responsible for mass atrocities enjoys greater impunity on the international stage than Benjamin Netanyahu. This is due to the strange stranglehold of the pro-Israel lobby on the two major political parties in the United States.

Unsurprisingly, the assertion by New York City mayoral candidate and front runner Zohran Mamdani on September 13 that he would order the arrest of Netanyahu if he ever came there, has attracted blowback from within the mainstream political establishments of both the Democratic and Republic parties, as well from extremist right-wing circles.

Legal experts have gone into a tizzy whether a future mayor of New York can arrest the leader of a foreign government. The unjustified blowback apparently in support of Israel’s televised genocide of the Palestinian people flies in the face of facts, basic principles of humanity and the shifting sands of public opinion in the United States.

A high- powered UN Commission of Inquiry led by a judge who investigated the Rwandan genocide of 1994 has recently concluded that Israel has committed genocide – the worst crime under international law – in Gaza.

The International Criminal Court (ICC) has a standing arrest warrant against Netanyahu and his former defence minister for using starvation as a weapon of war and for deliberately killing thousands of Palestinian civilians in Gaza. But bizarrely, it’s not Israel’s leaders but ICC judges and prosecutors who are being targeted through sanctions by the Trump administration.

Nevertheless, Netanyahu’s cruel war on Gaza is rapidly eroding American public support for Israel. According to the Pew Research Center’s latest findings more than half of American adults now possess an unfavourable opinion of Israel. Just 32 percent have confidence in Netanyahu himself.

However, the negative impacts of the damage done to American democracy by Netanyahu and his hardline supporters will linger on. Under the pretext of containing anti-Israeli sentiment, the Trump administration has attacked universities that were the site of sustained pro-Palestinian protests including Columbia and Harvard.

Academic freedom is a cherished American ideal but that hasn’t prevented the administration from threatening colleges and universities with federal funding cuts and placing restrictions on foreign students if they don’t toe the government’s line. Sadly, several pro-Palestinian student protest leaders have been arbitrarily detained in direct repudiation of constitutional protections on the freedom of speech and the right to peaceful protest drawing criticism from UN experts.

Many of us in civil society have been pointing out for some time that the leaders of the two major political parties in the United States are so beholden to the moneyed interests of their donors that they have become out of touch with the needs and aspirations of the American people.

Indeed, Israel’s belligerence in continuing atrocities on the civilian population in the Occupied Palestinian Territories of Gaza and the West Bank has been sharply rebuked by progressive groups like Jewish Voices for Peace and Jews for Racial and Economic Justice who support a new wave of politicians such as Mahmud Mamdani who are willing to stand up for human rights.

A generation of politicians who represent a more forward looking and inclusive vision for the United States and who enjoy widespread support in New York and beyond such as Alexandria Ocasio Cortez have rallied to Mamdani’s side.

Mamdani’s win in the Democratic primaries for the New York mayoral election was powered by a diverse coalition of supporters in America’s most diverse and vibrant city. He continues to be the front runner for the mayoral election slated on November 4.

So far, his focus has been on the issues that matter to most of the people of New York, such as the high cost of living and the ever- widening gap between millionaires and the rest of the country fueled by pro-big business policies and tax cuts.

Funnily, in blatant negation of diplomatic protocol, Netanyahu has jumped into the political fray by dubbing Mamdani’s proposals for New York City’s mayoral elections as ‘nonsense’.

Notably, Netanyahu is planning to come to New York to address the UN General Assembly on 26 September. When he speaks at the UN, it’s usually to disparage the institution, which will be marking 80 years of its founding from the ashes of war and the horrors of the holocaust.

Last year, a large number of delegates walked out of the UN hall when he came on stage. This year, Netanyahu emboldened by Trump’s support will try his best to repudiate the findings of the UN Commission of Inquiry on genocide in Gaza. Whether the delegates will pay attention is arguable.

However, one thing is certain. If Netanyahu attempts to go on to the streets of New York to campaign against Mamdani he will likely be met by mass protests.

Mandeep S. Tiwana is a human rights lawyer and Secretary General of global civil society alliance, CIVICUS. He is presently based in New York.

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 venue for the high-level meeting of the General Assembly, September 23-30, to commemorate the 80th anniversary of the establishment of the United Nations. The list of speakers includes 89 Heads of State, 5 Vice-Presidents, one Crown Prince and 43 Heads of Government. Credit: UN Photo/Loey Felipe

By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Sep 23 2025 (IPS)

As the UN commemorates its 80th anniversary, at a high-level meeting of 138 world political leaders, one lingering question remains: is there any reason for a celebration– judging by the UN’s mostly failed political performances over the last eight decades?

When he remotely addressed the Security Council in April 2022, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy was dead on target: “Where is the peace that the United Nations was created to guarantee? And “where is the security that the Security Council was supposed to guarantee?”

The UN apparently failed on both counts.

But the UN’s declining role in geo-politics, however, has been compensated for, by its increasingly significant performance as a massive global relief organization, providing humanitarian aid to millions of people caught in military conflicts worldwide.

Still, politics, seems to be the primary focus of the 80th anniversary.

Dr. Stephen Zunes, a Professor of Politics and International Studies at the University of San Francisco, who has written extensively about the United Nations, told IPS: “As someone who has defended the United Nations and emphasized its successes ever since I first visited the UN Headquarters in 1964 at age 8, I have never been more pessimistic.”

The United Nations is no more effective than its member states, particularly the more powerful ones, allow it to be, he pointed out.

“Things have steadily gotten worse since the end of the Cold War. The U.S. invasion of Iraq and the Russian invasion of Ukraine have demonstrated the failure of the UN’s most fundamental mission of preventing aggressive wars”.

During these past two years, he argued, the United States has been the sole negative vote on no less than six UN Security Council resolutions calling for a ceasefire in Gaza, thereby vetoing the measure. And, given that four of these were under the Biden administration, it underscores how efforts to undermine the UN’s authority in ending armed conflict is bipartisan.

Even one of the UN’s greatest successes, overseeing decolonization, said Dr Zunes, has been compromised by its inability to force Morocco to allow the people of the former Spanish colony of Western Sahara their right to self-determination, with the United States and an increasing number of European countries backing the Moroccans’ illegal takeover.

“The United States played a disproportionate role in the writing of the UN Charter and subsequent treaties, such as the Fourth Geneva Convention and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which the United Nations is expected to uphold.”

Yet in recent years, the United States–under both Republican and Democratic administrations–has increasingly been attacking the United Nations and its agencies, including its judicial bodies, when it has sought to enforce its charter and international humanitarian law, declared Dr Zunes, who has served as a senior policy analyst for the Foreign Policy in Focus project of the Institute for Policy Studies.

Dr Richard J. Ponzio, Director, Global Governance, Justice & Security Program and Senior Fellow at the Washinton-based Stimson Center, told IPS the United Nations, besides representing the world’s most universal and hence legitimate international organization, has demonstrated time and again its indispensability in the areas of peacebuilding, fighting extreme poverty, and increasingly in the areas of climate action and digital (including AI) governance too.

Felix Dodds, Stakeholder Forum Fellow, told IPS in this time of uncertainty, when the world has not been so insecure since the Cold War period, “we need to bolster multilateralism and ensure that we learn the lessons from history. Working together, we will build a more just, equitable and sustainable world for not only us but for future generations,” he said.

Amitabh Behar, Oxfam International’s Executive Director, said: “As leaders come together for UNGA80, the UN is under tremendous strain: critical funding has been slashed as needs rise, and its ability to deliver peace and security has been called into question, with some permanent members of the Security Council complicit in violating international humanitarian law.

“At its 80th anniversary, governments have a unique and urgent opportunity to lay the foundation for the reform direly needed to strengthen the UN so it is equipped to lead us in tackling the polycrisis we face – extreme and growing climate catastrophes and inequality, attacks on democracy and rights, the erosion of women’s and gender rights and deadly conflicts and extreme hunger, among others.

“In spite of it all, we must remember the power of collective action – we know that our best chance is together. This week at the UN, organizations like Oxfam are here to voice our concerns, offer our partnership and solidarity, and outline our own solutions.

“Now we need leaders to boldly share their own vision for a secure and peaceful way forward – and what they will do to fight for it with us.”

But what was the state of the world before the creation of the United Nations?

As Annalena Baerbock, President of the General Assembly told delegates, September 22: “Nations in ruins; More than 70 million dead; Two world wars in a single generation; the unspeakable horrors of the Holocaust, and 72 territories still under colonialism”.

“This was our world 80-years ago,” she said. “A desperate world grasping for any sign of hope’. But courageous leaders gave that hope through the Charter of the United Nations.

When signed, on 26 June 1945, it was more than yet another empty political declaration, she pointed out. It was a promise from leaders to their peoples, and from nations to one another, that humanity had learned from its darkest chapters.

“It was a pledge — not to deliver us to heaven — but to never again be dragged into hell by the forces of hatred and unchecked ambition,” Baerbock said.

Still, “We stand at a similar crossroads. We see children without parents, searching for food in the ruins of Gaza. The ongoing war in Ukraine. Sexual violence in Sudan. Gangs terrorizing people in Haiti. Un-filtered hatred online. And floods and droughts all over the world”.

Is this the world envisioned in our Charter she asked.

In a statement released last week, the Brussels-based International Crisis Group said it is far from the first time in the post-Cold War era that the UN has gone through troughs of doubt and division.

Similar periods of uncertainty followed the peacekeeping failures in the Balkans and Rwanda in the 1990s, as well as the debates about the 2003 Iraq war.

But while those were bruising eras, the organisation’s members managed to rally, reconcile and institute important reforms on each occasion. It is not clear they will be able or indeed want to do so this time.

While UN members will attend a special Summit of the Future to discuss reforming the organisation, in addition to their usual high-level week commitments, in September, major transformations of the UN’s peace and security work are unlikely to emerge any time soon, the Group warned.

Negotiations leading up to the summit have, if anything, served to highlight the lack of common vision among states for the future of multilateralism

Meanwhile, UN’s efforts at providing humanitarian aid are led by multiple UN agencies such as the World Food Program (WFP), the World Health Organization (WHO), the UN children’s fund UNICEF, the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) , the UN Population Fund (UNFPA), the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the International Organization for Migration (IOM) and the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), among others.

These agencies, which have saved millions of lives, continue to provide food, medical care and shelter, to those trapped in war-ravaged countries, mostly in Asia, Africa and the Middle East, while following closely in the footsteps of international relief organizations, including Doctors Without Borders, Save the Children, international Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), CARE International, Action Against Hunger, World Vision and Relief Without Borders, among others.

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');  

Written by Maria Niestadt.

As the global race to harness the power of artificial intelligence (AI) accelerates, the European Union has set the objective of becoming a leading AI continent. The adoption of the Artificial Intelligence Act in 2024 was a milestone in establishing a comprehensive regulatory framework for AI in the EU, but regulation alone cannot make the EU a technological leader. In April 2025, the European Commission published an AI continent action plan, a communication that attempts to look beyond rules and combine regulatory oversight with investment, infrastructure and skills development. It also aims to increase the use of AI in both the private and public sector. The plan illustrates the Commission’s growing attention to competitiveness, moving away from its previous focus on setting usage rules

Despite progress in some areas, the EU is still far from being a global leader in AI, in terms of scale, investment, and uptake of AI. Structural weaknesses such as a fragmented single market, limited private investment, and reliance on foreign cloud and semiconductor technology continue to hinder progress. Stakeholders are divided on the road to follow. While industry representatives call for simplifying regulation to boost innovation, civil society warns against sacrificing democratic safeguards.

The EU’s prospects of becoming an AI continent depend not only on its ability to implement the AI continent action plan but also on its decisiveness in acting on other fronts such as making progress on the Savings and Investments Union, and its progress in reducing reliance on foreign technologies. The European Parliament will play a central role in scrutinising the Commission’s activities and shaping legislation such as the forthcoming Cloud and AI Development Act.

Read the complete briefing on ‘Making Europe an AI continent‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

By Jomo Kwame Sundaram
JOHANNESBURG, South Africa, Sep 23 2025 (IPS)

US President Trump’s snide barbs against his appointee, US Federal Reserve Bank Chairman Jerome Powell, have revived support for central bank independence – long abused by powerful finance interests against growth and equity.

Jomo Kwame Sundaram

Independent central banks are supposed to improve the quality, equity, and growth impact of monetary policy. Instead, they have primarily served powerful financial interests, with contractionary and regressive effects leading to slower, unequal growth.

Independent of whom?
Central banks were established to determine monetary policy to shape financial conditions to achieve national economic objectives.

In recent decades, the new conventional policy wisdom has been that independent central banks should set monetary policy. Thus, they have been influenced by powerful financial interests, typically foreign, in smaller, open developing countries.

In the last half-century, many governments have changed laws under the influence of international finance to legislate central bank independence from governments of the day, especially the executive and legislative branches.

Meanwhile, most central banks have come to equate financial stability with price stability as ‘inflation targeting’ became the leading policy fetish.

When inflation rises, central banks raise interest rates, which reduces economic activity. However, some central banks of open economies, especially those pegging to major international currencies, target the exchange rate.

Thus, reducing inflation by conventional means worsens contractionary pressures. Many governments now face the threat of ‘stagflation’, i.e., recession with inflation. Central banks recognise this trade-off regarding how much growth has to decline for inflation to fall.

With interest rate management as their primary policy tool, central banks may raise interest rates in anticipation of inflation, despite its adverse consequences for growth, income and employment.

Such contractionary effects have reduced wages and jobs worldwide. Only a few, mainly large developed economies, have had other priorities, such as growth or employment.

Ironically, the end of the Bretton Woods fixed exchange rates regime and the counter-revolution against Keynesian economics from the late 1970s ensured the irrelevance of Milton Friedman’s monetarist emphasis on central banks’ money supply targeting.

Worsening inequity
Central banks worldwide respond to and anticipate inflation by raising interest rates to curb inflation.

‘Inflation targeting’ causes significant collateral damage, typically reducing growth, income and employment. Poor households’ incomes are likelier to fall, especially with labour-displacing technological change, such as mechanisation, automation, and artificial intelligence (AI) applications.

As unemployment increases, poor workers are more likely to lose jobs, especially hurting poorer families. Banks have typically profited handsomely from such situations, although most people are worse off.

With lending rates rising, banks get even more interest as borrowing rates lag, not increasing as much. Max Lawson cites an IMF study finding that the adverse effects of higher interest rates are “not counterbalanced by the positive effects of lower interest rates.”

The US Fed strongly influences central banks worldwide. Higher Fed interest rates from 2023, in response to minor inflationary pressures, have hurt developing countries, especially the poorest.

As most Global South companies and governments have incurred dollar-denominated debt, countries’ central banks raised interest rates to deter capital outflows.

Quantitative easing
‘Quantitative easing’ (QE) refers to central bank interventions buying financial assets. Such interventions were sought as it is difficult for central banks to cut interest rates below zero to revive economies. QE seemed to fit the bill.

Commercial banks typically get more for their deposits with the central bank when it raises interest rates. Thus, they receive considerable additional windfall interest payments from the central bank risk-free.

QE programmes seek to raise asset prices. Central banks buy assets such as government debt, inducing private investors to acquire riskier assets. US government debt is still the most important financial asset in the international monetary system.

Thus, QE tries to induce growth, presuming earlier contractionary policies will continue to curb or ‘moderate’ inflation. This has even been justified as prudent, as inflation rates were below target despite interest rates near zero.

Major Western central banks adopted QE following the 2008-09 global financial crisis. Many governments spent even more in response to the COVID-19 pandemic from 2020.

Such efforts sought to counter the downward spiral of falling financial asset prices. The US Fed’s QE intervention involved ‘portfolio rebalancing’. It bought over $600 billion in US Treasury bonds and almost $300 billion in mortgage-backed securities.

Wealth is concentrated in relatively few hands in most societies. Jordi Bosch showed the top ten per cent holding 11 times more wealth than the bottom half in the euro zone, while the bottom fifth had more debt than assets.

QE interventions increase financial asset prices, enriching owners, especially the rich, who have more assets. As prices rise, their worth generally increases. Hence, such central bank interventions further enrich the already wealthy.

As the world struggles to cope with challenges posed by the current conjuncture, we must not jump out of the frying pan back into the fire kindled by central bank independence.

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

• Global South Stagnating under Heavier Debt Burden
• Exchange Rate Movements Due to Interest Rates, Speculation, Not Fundamentals
• Developing Countries Need Monetary Financing
• Stop Worshiping Central Banks
• Central Bank Myths Drag down World Economy
• Ideology and Dogma Ensure Policy Disaster
• Inflation Phobia Hastens Recessions, Debt Crises
• Inflation Targeting Farce: High Costs, Moot Benefits
• Fighting Inflation Excuse for Class Warfare
• When Saviours Are the Problem
• Finance Drives World to Stagflation

Nepal’s urbanization has contributed to a growing prevalence of ultra-processed food, which in turn has led to an increase in noncommunicable diseases among children. A family in Nepal picks out fresh produce at a vegetable market in an effort to promote healthy diets. Credit: UNICEF/Bishal Bisht

By Oritro Karim
UNITED NATIONS, Sep 22 2025 (IPS)

The World Health Organization (WHO) is urging global efforts to address and invest in tackling non-communicable diseases, and that by doing so, can yield economic benefits of up to USD 1 trillion by 2030.

Ahead of the upcoming United Nations (UN) General Assembly High-Level Meeting on the prevention of Noncommunicable Diseases (NCDs) on September 25, WHO released their newest report, Saving Lives, Spending Less: The Global Investment Case for Noncommunicable Diseases, during a virtual press conference on September 18. The report highlighted the global state of physical and mental health, calling for cost-effective interventions to reduce preventable deaths, accelerate progress toward the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and strengthen health systems worldwide.

According to the report, NCDs—which include cancer, diabetes, and cardiovascular and lung diseases—are the leading causes of death in most countries, claiming over 43 million lives each year, including 18 million premature deaths. WHO further notes that hundreds of millions of people are currently living with at least one NCD, which significantly reduces both quality of life and lifespan.

Despite 82 percent of countries achieving reductions in NCD mortality between 2010 and 2019, the rate of progress has stalled significantly in the 2020s, with many countries recording higher numbers of NCD-related deaths post-pandemic. This is particularly dire for low-and middle-income countries, where the inadequate access to healthcare costs roughly 32 million lives each year. It is projected that over 150 million people could die prematurely from NCDs unless effective global action is taken.

“There is no country on earth that isn’t now, and in the coming years is going to be challenged by the issues of NCDs and mental health,” said Jeremy Farrar, a medical researcher and the Chief Scientist at WHO. “Demographic shifts, multimorbidity—where people have more than one condition—are going to be an issue for health systems all around the world, including for the richest countries in the world.”

WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus noted that over three million people die each year due to unsafe or inequitable access to healthcare. He further highlighted that more than one billion people face mental challenges worldwide, with suicide remaining one of the leading causes of death among young people.

“Noncommunicable diseases and mental health conditions are silent killers, robbing us of lives and innovation,” said Ghebreyesus. “We have the tools to save lives and reduce suffering. Countries like Denmark, South Korea, and Moldova are leading the way, while others are stalling. Investing in the fight against NCDs isn’t just smart economics—it’s an urgent necessity for thriving societies.”

Global exposure to preventable risk factors — such as tobacco and alcohol use, unhealthy diets, excessive consumption of sugary beverages, and physical inactivity — kills more than 10 million people each year and continues to exacerbate health issues worldwide. WHO further attributes the proliferation of NCDs and mental health challenges to demographic shifts such as rapid urbanization, which has left many countries grappling with rising debt, economic pressures, and limited fiscal space—factors that hinder effective investment in sustainable development and healthcare.

“When we talk about NCDs, it is very important to recognize that we are going against very strong financial interests,” said Etienne Krug, WHO Director for health determinants, promotion, and prevention. “There are a whole series of unhealthy products on the market right now, ranging from tobacco, unhealthy foods, alcohol, etcetera. Acting against the interests of some of these powerful companies is not always approached with the same energy from different governments. Unless we do take action to promote healthy products and limit the sale of unhealthy products, we will not make progress in tackling NCDs — and not fast enough.”

WHO estimates that implementing relatively low-cost policies could yield significant returns, accelerating progress toward the SDGs while improving public health. According to the report, if every person invested just USD 3 per year, up to 12 million lives could be saved between 2025 and 2030—equivalent to roughly 150 million healthy life years. Economically, this could generate up to USD 1 trillion in benefits worldwide, representing a four-to-one return on investment. By 2035, these gains are estimated to grow even further, with every dollar invested yielding up to seven dollars in economic benefits.

Numerous low- and middle-income countries have reported significant gains in public health and the economy after implementing policy changes on access to unhealthy substances. In 2018, Brazil went from being the nation with the sixth-cheapest cigarettes in the world to implementing the highest tobacco tax rate in the Americas, leading to significant reductions in nationwide smoking rates.

Numerous low- and middle-income countries have reported significant public health and economic gains after implementing policies to limit access to unhealthy substances. In 2018, Brazil shifted from having the sixth-cheapest cigarettes in the world to imposing the highest tobacco tax rate in the Americas, resulting in a significant nationwide decline in smoking rates, saving hundreds of thousands of lives.

Similarly, the integration of hypertension control services into primary care in Bangladesh, Ethiopia, and the Philippines has allowed millions of people with hypertension to manage their blood pressure. The most notable gains were recorded in the Philippines, where approximately 80 percent of patients have achieved controlled blood pressure since the implementation of these practices.

Despite these global gains, the United States continues to fall short in addressing the rise of NCDs. It is among the most NCD-affected countries in the world, with rates of obesity being particularly pronounced. Despite the U.S. allocating a disproportionately high expenditure for healthcare in comparison to other countries, its approach remains largely ineffective in maximizing public health outcomes. Ghebreyesus stated that investing in policies that promote healthy practices and disease prevention would address the root cause of NCDs, and possibly save millions of lives.

Ghebreyesus also expressed concern during the panel over the U.S.’s planned withdrawal from WHO next year, noting that the country has historically been the organization’s largest contributor and warning of the significant losses in public health that can be expected. According to Ghebreyesus, the new amendment to WHO’s policies includes critical information on global weaknesses that have been identified during the COVID-19 pandemic, which will prove to be crucial in tackling NCDs moving forward.

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');  

New composition of the Chambers of the General Court of the European Union

Niemand ist glücklich über die Pläne für eine Unternehmenssteuer, sagte ein EU-Diplomat.

Written by Clément Evroux.

CONTEXT

On 25 June 2025, the Commission published a proposal for a regulation on the safety, resilience and sustainability of space activities in the European Union (EU) (‘the EU space act’). A majority of Member States have already adopted or are considering adopting legislation on space activities. The regulation’s relevance was highlighted by Mario Draghi’s report on the future of European competitiveness, which explained the role of space systems and services in supporting the EU’s sovereignty and economy.

Article 114 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union – TFEU (internal market) is the legal basis of the proposed regulation. It aims to create a single market for space activities, grounded on common safety, sustainability and resilience rules, which should apply in principle to any space operator providing space services in the EU. The proposal is expected to lay down rules on: the authorisation, registration and supervision of space activities and services carried out by space service providers; orbit traffic management; and the establishment of an EU space label. On resilience, the proposed regulation is expected to complement Directive (EU)2022/2555 on measures for a high common level of cybersecurity across the EU, and Directive (EU) 2022/2557 on the resilience of critical entities. In the Parliament, the file has been referred to the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (ITRE), which has appointed Elena Donazzan (ECR, Italy) as rapporteur. In the Council, the working party on space has started examining the proposal.

LEGISLATIVE PROPOSAL

2025/0335(COD) – Proposal for a regulation on the safety, resilience and sustainability of space activities in the Union – COM(2025) 335, 25 June 2025

NEXT STEPS IN THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

For the latest developments in this legislative procedure, see the Legislative Train Schedule: 2025/0335(COD) EU space law

Read the complete briefing on ‘EU space act‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Dauer des Videos : 105'

Haftungsausschluss : Die Verdolmetschung der Debatten soll die Kommunikation erleichtern, sie stellt jedoch keine authentische Aufzeichnung der Debatten dar. Authentisch sind nur die Originalfassungen der Reden bzw. ihre überprüften schriftlichen Übersetzungen.
Quelle : © Europäische Union, 2025 - EP

A delegation of the Committee on Foreign Affairs (AFET), led by MEP Matjaž Nemec (S&D, SI) traveled to Bosnia and Herzegovina from 16 to 18 September 2025. This was the first official visit of the AFET Committee to the Western Balkans in the 10th legislative term.
The visit aimed to underline the Committee's commitment to Bosnia and Herzegovina's European integration, grounded in unity, sovereignty, territorial integrity. Members discussed Bosnia and Herzegovina's progress, and the further reforms needed to advance in its accession path towards the EU.
Source : © European Union, 2025 - EP

Written by Steven Blaakman.

Although euthanasia and assisted dying remain highly controversial in large parts of the globe, an increasing number of countries have legislation on it in place or are considering doing so. This is due to changing attitudes, advancements in medical technology and an ageing population.

Several EU countries are at the forefront of these legal changes; at the same time, each of them has come up with its own solutions for addressing challenges such as how to avoid abuse.

Neither EU law nor the European Convention on Human Rights contain provisions precluding EU countries from legislating on euthanasia. In response to questions from Members of the European Parliament, the European Commission has made it clear the EU is not competent to deal with the issue in any way.

Four EU countries – Belgium, Spain, Luxembourg and the Netherlands – have legislation in force that allows euthanasia to be administered by a physician. Germany, Italy and Austria allow assisted suicide only.

The Netherlands and Belgium, the two EU countries that were the first to allow euthanasia, have seen an increasing number of people apply for euthanasia over the years, with studies showing no sign of the legislation leading to any abuse.

In addition, several EU countries are working on legislation on euthanasia or assisted dying. These include: Ireland, France, Cyprus, Malta, Portugal and Slovenia. The Portuguese parliament adopted relevant legislation back in 2023; however, owing to vetoes by the Portuguese president and rulings by the country’s constitutional court, it has still not entered into force.

Read the complete briefing on ‘Euthanasia legislation in the EU‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.