Africa

"This is the only hustle we know," miners tell the BBC as they try their luck at the site in Springs.

Der Fast-Food-Riese aus den USA will in Uznach SG ein neues Restaurant mit Drive-in bauen. Einwohner haben Einsprache gegen das Projekt erhoben. Besonders die Nähe zu einer Schule im Dorf sorgt für Kritik.

Credit: UNICEF/Eyad El Baba
 
What is international humanitarian law? Families flee their shattered homes in Tal al-Hawa neighbourhood in Gaza city. While aid workers serving conflict-affected civilian populations depend on a set of laws to protect them, some warring parties violate these global agreements, from targeting hospitals and schools to blocking aid workers from reaching civilians with lifesaving goods and services. Source: UN News

By Stuart Casey-Maslen
GENEVA, Feb 17 2026 (IPS)

International humanitarian law is at a breaking point, as rampant impunity for serious violations is enabling even greater abuses against civilians and detainees.

Across today’s wars, violations are no longer concealed or exceptional. They are increasingly open, systematic, and unpunished, with catastrophic consequences for those whom the law is supposed to protect.

New analysis of 23 situations of armed conflict between July 2024 and the end of 2025 reveals a consistent pattern: civilians are being killed, abused and starved at scale, while accountability mechanisms either falter or are actively undermined. Genocidal violence in Gaza, a renewed risk of genocide in Sudan, and mass atrocities elsewhere are not isolated horrors. Taken together, they point to a deeper failure – the collapse of meaningful restraint in the conduct of hostilities.

Conflict-related sexual violence has reached epidemic levels. Rape, sexual slavery, and sexual violence used as punishment or as a tool of territorial control have been documented across multiple conflicts, including in Colombia, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Myanmar, and Sudan. Particularly alarming is the growing number of cases involving attacks children, including victims as young as one.

These are not by-products of war, but violations long prohibited under international humanitarian law, now committed with near-total impunity. This occurs with the complicity of many other States, which have a duty to respect and ensure respect international humanitarian law.

This erosion of civilian protection is not primarily the result of gaps in legal knowledge. The rules exist. The problem is political choice – and a persistent failure to enforce, clarify and update the law where it no longer offers meaningful restraint.

Nowhere is this clearer than in the global arms trade. The United Nations Arms Trade Treaty has been widely ratified, including by major exporters such as China, France, and the United Kingdom. In theory, it requires its member States to deny arms transfers where there is a clear risk that weapons will be used to commit serious violations of international law. In practice, legal risk assessments are all too often overridden by strategic and political considerations.

Continued arms exports to Israel, Russia, and others, despite overwhelming evidence of civilian harm, have had devastating consequences on the ground.

Closing this gap does not require a raft of new rules in the short term. It requires the consistent application of existing ones: enforceable, evidence-based export controls; independent scrutiny of licensing decisions; and real accountability where transfers are authorised despite a clear risk that the law will be breached by the recipient.

Certain categories of weapons are though incompatible with the protection of civilians, but do not necessarily violate the already permissive standards. Repeated firing into populated areas of gravity ordnance from the air and inaccurate long-range artillery from the ground has been a major driver of civilian casualties across multiple conflicts.

There is a fundamental lack of clarity on two key rules: first, how close an attack may be launched to a military target while still complying with the law; and second, how much incidental civilian harm is permissible when targeting a military objective.

On both issues, the law urgently requires clarification. Restricting air-delivered weapons to precision-guided munitions alone would already make a measurable difference to civilian survival. Achieving this, however, requires States to clarify and update the rules of international humanitarian law that were drafted in the 1970s.

In State-on-State conflicts such as in Kherson province in Ukraine, drones have been used by Russian forces – and others – to target civilians, sometimes with real-time video footage disseminated online by the perpetrators.

At the same time, armed drones are no longer the preserve of States. Their use by non-State armed groups is increasing rapidly, including by JNIM in the Sahel, Islamic State in Somalia, and the Arakan Army in Myanmar. There is an urgent need for stronger mechanisms to attribute, investigate, and prosecute unlawful drone and autonomous weapon attacks.

Impunity on this scale is not inevitable. It is the product of sustained political and financial neglect. Institutions designed to promote compliance with international humanitarian law – including domestic courts and international tribunals – are under severe strain, with some facing paralysis or closure due to lack of resources.

Judges at bodies such as the International Criminal Court have even been sanctioned simply for carrying out their mandates. If States are serious about protecting civilians, political and financial support for these institutions must be treated as a core obligation and a policy priority, not an optional gesture.

The current moment represents a critical test for international humanitarian law itself. The international lawyer Hersch Lauterpacht once warned that the law existed at the “vanishing point” of international law. That warning is no longer theoretical.

Whether humanitarian law continues to function as a real constraint on warfare, or recedes into symbolic rhetoric, will depend on the political choices states make now – and on whether civilian protection is treated as a legal duty rather than a discretionary one.

Stuart Casey-Maslen is an international lawyer and lead author of War Watch: International Humanitarian Law in Focus at the Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and 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');  

It is the latest twist over the fate of Lungu's body, which remains in a South African morgue since his death.

Women perform a disproportionate amount of unpaid labor, hindering their ability to build assets or advance careers. Credit: Manipadma Jena/IPS

By Joseph Chamie
PORTLAND, USA, Feb 17 2026 (IPS)

The global struggle for equality for women and girls has been ongoing for centuries, with no single country having achieved full equality. In many countries, women and girls continue to face discrimination, harassment, unequal treatment, injustice, domestic violence, and a lack of security and safety.

One of the primary goals of this struggle is to dismantle systemic discrimination and secure basic human rights for women and girls. These rights include economic freedom, social independence, voting power, and bodily autonomy.

Discrimination, harassment, lack of rights, limited healthcare, unequal access to resources, education and political power, high rates of violence, forced marriages, and cultural preferences for male children all contribute to the unequal treatment of girls and women

While some progress has been made, the current global situation regarding women’s equality remains concerning. Many women and girls still struggle for their lives, their rights and their dignity.

It wasn’t until the beginning of the 20th century that countries began passing legislation to ensure women the right to vote and stand for election. The first country to permit women to vote was New Zealand in 1893. Approximately a decade later, Australia, Finland, Denmark and Iceland followed suit.

By the middle of the 20th century, more than half of all countries had granted women the right to vote and today, none of the world’s nearly 200 countries bar women from voting. However, some countries effectively or practically deny women this right through the absence of elections or restrictive regimes.

National surveys across different regions of the world find large majorities of the public supporting women’s equality and saying it is very important for women in their country to have the same rights as men. The majority of the public supporting women’s equality varies from highs of 90 percent or more in countries such as Canada, Sweden and the United Kingdom to lows of approximately 55 percent in Kenya, Russia and South Korea.

In contrast, a minority of misogynists consider women inferior to men. This minority often treats women as their personal property, denying them control over their lives and bodies. They restrict women’s political, social and economic rights, and frequently ridicule, intimidate and physically abuse them.

Various indexes and metrics have been used to measure the extent and progress of women’s equality among countries. For example, the Women, Peace and Security Index, based on thirteen indicators of women’s status in 181 countries, focuses on inclusion, justice, rights, security, and safety.

The top five countries that rank high on the Women, Peace and Security Index are Denmark, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, and Finland. Together, these five countries account for approximately 0.3% of the world’s female population. European countries hold nine of the top ten rankings on the index, with the Nordic countries consistently ranking in the top ten for many years.

In contrast, the five bottom countries that rank low on this index are Afghanistan, Yemen, Central African Republic, Syria, and Sudan. Among the ten lowest ranked countries on the index, only one country, Haiti, is not in Africa or Asia (Table 1).

Source: Women, Peace and Security Index.

It is noteworthy that the ten countries with the largest economies are not among the top ranked countries on the index. Among these ten countries, Canada and Germany have the highest rankings of 16 and 21, respectively. In contrast, China and India, which each have about 17% of the world’s female population, are ranked significantly lower on this index, with scores of 89 and 131, respectively.

Another metric used to assess countries’ progress in achieving women’s equality is the United Nations Gender Inequality Index (GII). The GII is a composite metric that measures maternal mortality, teen births, secondary education attainment, share of parliamentary seats, and labor market participation.

No single country has achieved full equality, with women still facing the threat of discrimination, harassment, and gender-based violence. In many developing countries, women and girls continue to experience serious injustices, including forced marriage, and high levels of domestic and sexual violence.

According to the GII, the five countries with the highest ranking in terms of women’s equality are Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, and the Netherlands. Conversely, the five countries with the lowest ranking on the GII are Yemen, Nigeria, Somalia, Chad and Afghanistan. Other rankings, such as the Gender Gap Index of the World Economic Forum and the Best Countries of U.S. News, also produced similar rankings of countries with the highest and lowest levels of women’s equality.

Various factors contribute to the lack of women’s equality and discrimination against women and girls. Notable among these factors are restrictive laws, discriminatory norms, cultural stereotypes, violence risks, and unequal education that value men and boys over women and girls. These misogynistic barriers are reinforced by unconscious bias, weak policy enforcement, economic disparities, and structural disadvantages (Table 2).

Source: Amnesty International.

Men and boys are often given more education, power, resources and opportunities than women and girls. Additionally, traditional or religious norms typically depict males as dominant and females as subordinate. While these norms generally affirm the spiritual equality of men and women, they often perpetuate social and institutional inequality on Earth due to traditional interpretations of sacred religious texts.

Discrimination, harassment, lack of rights, limited healthcare, unequal access to resources, education and political power, high rates of violence, forced marriages, and cultural preferences for male children all contribute to the unequal treatment of girls and women.

Moreover, women also perform a disproportionate amount of unpaid labor, hindering their ability to build assets or advance careers. They face lower pay for equal work and are often concentrated in lower-paying occupations. In many countries, women also have restricted access to land ownership, credit, financial services, and unequal legal protection.

Humanitarian crises, climate change, and pandemics have a tendency to disproportionately affect women, exacerbating existing inequalities. Fragile states and those experiencing conflict also tend to rank poorly in terms of women’s equality.

Women’s inequality also varies within countries. For example, while women make up 50% of the U.S. population, women ‘s inequality persists across social, economic, and political sectors. According to 17 various key indicators of women’s equality in the U.S., one study found that the top five states are Hawaii, Nevada, Maryland, Maine, and Oregon, while the bottom five states are Utah, Texas, Idaho, Arkansas, and Louisiana (Table 3).

Source: WalletHub.

There are only about five years left for the world to fulfill the promises made to girls and women for gender equality in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Realizing gender equality is not only the right thing to do, but it is vital for sustainable development.

Women’s equality is a fundamental human right and a foundation for a peaceful and sustainable world. Progress has been achieved over the last several decades. However, the world is not on track to achieve gender equality by 2030.

During the remaining years, eleven of the biggest challenges have been identified and need to be addressed in order to advance women’s equality. These challenges include discrimination, inequalities, inadequate access to education and healthcare, lack of women in political leadership, violence against women and girls, poverty, and lack of economic opportunities (Table 4).

 

Source: UN Women.

Women and girls face discrimination that hinders their access to education, employment, healthcare, and legal protections. Treating women unfairly and depriving them of their basic human rights leads to the creation of unjust societies.

Approximately 1 in 3 women – estimated at 840 million globally – have experienced partner or sexual violence in their lifetime. In the last 12 months alone, 316 million women –which is 11% of those aged 15 or older – were subjected to physical or sexual violence by an intimate partner.

Major factors contributing to the lack of women’s equality include restrictive laws, discriminatory norms, cultural stereotypes, violence and safety risks, weak enforcement policies, unequal education, economic disparities, inadequate healthcare, lack of political representation, employment segregation, pay gap, unpaid care burden, and unequal household responsibilities.

Achieving women’s equality requires a multi-faceted approach. This includes ensuring their basic human rights, enforcing legal protections against discrimination and violence, ensuring equal pay, education access, economic empowerment, and opportunities, promoting women in leadership roles, dismantling misogynistic stereotypes, advancing inclusive policies, supporting women-led institutions, and encouraging shared domestic responsibility.

Additionally, this multi-faceted approach involves promoting proactive efforts by governments, non-governmental institutions, businesses, schools, community organizations, families, and individuals to ensure equal opportunities, freedom from violence, and fundamental human rights for women and girls.

Joseph Chamie is an independent consulting demographer and former director of the United Nations Population Division.

 

The troops, who landed at an airfield in Bauchi state, will not take part in combat operations, officials say.

Nigeria fans are still hoping Fifa may rule in their favour over allegations that DR Congo fielded ineligible players during Africa's 2026 World Cup play-offs.

Die kleinste Bank am Zürichsee, die Regiobank Männedorf, wird in die Acrevis Bank integriert. Der überraschende Verkauf für 25,8 Millionen Franken verärgert Aktionäre. Hohe Gehälter und Kreditverluste haben das traditionsreiche Institut ins Wanken gebracht.

In der Schweiz sind Sportferien, doch gerade jetzt herrscht in den Bergen enorme Lawinengefahr. Entsprechend vorsichtig sollten die Wintersportler aktuell sein. Blick klärt die wichtigsten Fragen.

Zimbabwe qualify for the Super 8s at the T20 World Cup as rain washes out their Group B game against Ireland.

Chancellor Friedrich Merz delivered a keynote speech at the start of the Munich Security Conference in which he emphasised that Europe must preserve its own values, actively protect its freedom and build on its strengths. "We must flip the switch in our minds," he said, outlining a sovereign Europe that breaks free from its excessive dependence on the US. Europe's media examine Merz's vision and point to potential flaws.

The future of the global development architecture will be defined by choices made among competing visions already present today. A turn toward nationalist and transactional approaches risks further fragmentation and diminished support for the most vulnerable countries. More selective forms of multilateralism may preserve existing institutions while narrowing their ambition. Pluralist cooperation offers flexibility but weakens coherence and shared standards. A renewed emphasis on global solidarity would strengthen collective capacity to address global public goods, but requires sustained political commitment and institutional reform.

La Société de Gestion des Déchets et de la Salubrité (SGDS SA) a mis en service une nouvelle base logistique située à Akpakpa, PK3, dans le 4ᵉ arrondissement de Cotonou.

La Société de Gestion des Déchets et de la Salubrité (SGDS SA) dispose désormais d'une infrastructure moderne à PK3 qui renforce ses capacités opérationnelles. Il s'agit d'une base logistique implantée sur une superficie de deux hectares. Selon Arcadius Jerry Aniambossou, chef du service matériel et logistique, le complexe comprend un bloc administratif de plus de 469 m², une cantine de 113 m², une salle polyvalente de 100 places, une infirmerie, un guichet automatique bancaire ainsi qu'une station-service interne dotée d'une capacité de stockage de 80 000 litres de carburant, offrant jusqu'à deux mois d'autonomie.

Construite aux normes Hygiène, Sécurité et Environnement (HSE), la base abrite également deux magasins de stockage d'environ 180 m² chacun, un vaste espace de stationnement pouvant accueillir 160 camions, 163 bennes, 10 remorques et 80 motos. Deux aires de lavage équipées de fosses de décantation y sont aménagées. Le site dispose en outre d'aménagements paysagers et d'une autonomie énergétique et hydraulique. « Ici, toutes les opérations sont effectuées à l'interne », a indiqué le chef du service matériel et logistique. A l'en croire, l'intégration de cette base permettra de réduire les temps d'immobilisation des camions. « Il n'y avait pas d'atelier pour remédier aux différentes pannes. Aujourd'hui, l'atelier est là, bien outillé et équipé. Cela va nous permettre de réduire les temps d'immobilisation et d'avoir plus de camions à déployer », a-t-il expliqué.

Au total, près de 400 agents travaillent sur la base. La cantine, le guichet bancaire et l'infirmerie contribueront à réduire les temps de transit et à améliorer la prise en charge du personnel. « La population constatera une amélioration dans la propreté de nos camions. Nous maintenons les villes propres, nous devons aussi maintenir nos matériels propres », a-t-il ajouté.

De bonnes pratiques en matière de sécurité routière

À l'occasion de la mise en service, la SGDS SA a organisé, en collaboration avec la Police républicaine, une séance de sensibilisation à l'endroit des conducteurs et opérateurs. Selon Mauriak Ahomagnon, chef secteur Hygiène, Sécurité et Environnement à la SGDS SA, cette initiative s'inscrit dans une démarche continue de prévention. La séance a porté sur les règles de courtoisie et la conduite défensive.

Le commissaire du premier arrondissement de Cotonou a insisté sur des principes clés tels que l'anticipation, l'adaptation, le respect des distances de sécurité, la visibilité et le calme au volant. « Il faut toujours rappeler ces règles aux conducteurs pour éviter les accidents », a-t-il souligné.

Le commissaire a par ailleurs salué le travail « formidable » mené par les agents de la SGDS pour une ville propre et durable, tout en invitant la population à faciliter leur mission. Avec cette nouvelle base logistique, la SGDS SA entend optimiser les opérations de collecte et de traitement des déchets, tout en renforçant la sécurité et les conditions de travail de son personnel.

Quelques images

Die Zukunft der globalen Entwicklungsarchitektur entscheidet sich zwischen schon heute konkurrierenden Visionen. Eine Entwicklung hin zu nationalistischer und transaktionaler Zusammenarbeit birgt das Risiko weiterer Fragmentierung und geringerer Unterstützung für die verletzlichsten Länder. Selektivere Formen des Multilateralismus können Institutionen erhalten, verengen aber ihr Mandat. Pluralistische Kooperation bietet Flexibilität, verringert jedoch Kohärenz und gemeinsame Standards. Eine neue Betonung globaler Solidarität stärkt die kollektive Fähigkeit, globale öffentliche Güter bereitzustellen, verlangt aber dauerhaftes politisches Engagement und Reformen.

Une autre aventure vers Guinness World Records a débuté, ce lundi 16 février 2026, avec le Guépard des fourneaux, chef Delphin Agbetogan, au Majestic Cinéma (Ex Canal Olympia).

A la suite de l'Amazone en cheffe, Keith Sonon, un autre Béninois s'engage dans la course Guinness World Records du plus long marathon culinaire. Le Guépard des fourneaux Chef Delphin Agbetogan s'engage pour 25 jours de cuisine. Son objectif c'est d'atteindre 600 heures avec 500 plats offerts par jour pour les plus vulnérables.

"Ce défi n'est plus seulement le mien. C'est celui de tout un peuple. C'est une bataille pour les orphelins", a-t-il écrit sur sa page Facebook. Le défi est en cours au Majestic Cinéma (Ex Canal Olympia).

L'Amazone en cheffe a fait 384 heures, soit 16 jours consécutifs de cuisine avec 2 heures de pause par jour. Le Guépard des fourneaux, Chef Delphin Agbetogan, veut battre un record de 25 jours.

Is today’s global turbulence a sign of collapse, or of overdue rebalancing? There is little doubt about the relevance of Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney’s speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos. It was a strong intervention, not least because it drew on Eastern European experience through its explicit reference to Václav Havel’s 1978 essay The Power of the Powerless. Carney’s call for “building coalitions that work” resonated widely especially because, without mentioning President Trump, he spoke with unusual clarity and candour as a Western leader about the state of the international system and the pressures it is currently under.

Bonn, 17. Februar 2026. Das zwischenstaatliche Gewaltverbot bleibt die zentrale Säule von Frieden und internationaler Sicherheit. Für Deutschland und Europa ist dies besonders zentral.

Am 3. Januar 2026 verschleppten amerikanische Spezialeinheiten den venezolanischen Diktator Nikolas Maduro in die USA, wobei mehrere Menschen getötet wurden. Maduro wurde wegen des Vorwurfs von Drogenkriminalität vor ein US-Gericht gestellt. US-Präsident Trump kündigte an, die USA würden nun von Venezuelas Ölreichtum profitieren und sprach von der „Donroe-Doktrin“ – eine Referenz auf die Monroe-Doktrin, mit welcher frühere US-Interventionen in Lateinamerika begründet wurden. Während Völkerrechtler*innen die Entführung Maduros einhellig als völkerrechtswidrig verurteilten, fielen die politischen Reaktionen in Europa zum Teil verhalten aus. Bundeskanzler Friedrich Merz bezeichnete die „rechtliche Einordnung“ des Einsatzes zunächst als „komplex“. Auch der britische Premierminister Keir Starmer und mehrere andere europäische Spitzenpolitiker*innen äußerten sich eher zurückhaltend. Viele betonten zwar, das Völkerrecht sei grundsätzlich immer zu achten, verwiesen aber auch auf den illegitimen, autokratischen Charakter des Maduro-Regimes und verurteilten die US-Intervention nicht explizit.

Zwischenstaatliches Gewaltverbot als Säule des Weltfriedens

Die in Artikel 2.4 der UN-Charta formulierte Pflicht der Staaten, in ihren internationalen Beziehungen jegliche Androhung und Anwendung von Gewalt zu unterlassen, ist die tragende Säule der regelbasierten Friedensordnung unter dem Dach der UN. Hiervon existieren nur zwei Ausnahmen: Erstens das in Art. 51 der UN-Charta verbriefe Recht der Staaten auf Selbstverteidigung bei einem Angriffskrieg. Und zweitens militärische Zwangsmaßnahmen, welche der UN-Sicherheitsrat nach Kapitel VII erlassen kann, wenn er den Weltfrieden oder die internationale Sicherheit gefährdet sieht. Auch Tatbestände wie Genozid und Verbrechen gegen die Menschlichkeit können im Sinne der Schutzverantwortung als Gefährdung des Weltfriedens gewertet werden. Jedoch ist dies auf schwerste Menschenrechtsverletzungen beschränkt. Insgesamt gelten damit nur wenige Ausnahmen vom zwischenstaatlichen Gewaltverbot – denn es ist die zentrale Lehre, welche die Staaten aus den Verheerungen des Zweiten Weltkriegs zogen. Keine dieser Ausnahmen traf auf den Fall Venezuela zu. Ein autokratisches Regierungssystem stellt keine völkerrechtliche Legitimation für eine militärische Intervention dar.

Sicherheit in Zeiten von Großmachtpolitik

Seit dem Angriff Russlands auf die Ukraine stellt sich für Deutschland und Europa die Frage, wie sie in einer Zeit, in der die Bedrohung durch aggressive Großmächte zunimmt, ihre Sicherheit am besten garantieren können und welche Rolle das Völkerrecht dabei spielt. Die 2023 verabschiedete Nationale Sicherheitsstrategie Deutschlands formuliert hierauf eine klare Antwort: „Wir treten ein für eine freie internationale Ord­nung auf Grundlage der Charta der Vereinten Nationen […] und des Völkerrechts. […] Den Versuchen, die Welt in Einflusssphären einzuteilen, stellen wir das positive Modell einer solchen regelbasierten Ordnung entgegen“, heißt es da. Dieses Eintreten wird aktuell nur wichtiger. So konstatiert der zur Münchner Sicherheitskonferenz veröffentlichte MSC Report 2026, die Welt sei „in eine Phase der Abrissbirnenpolitik eingetreten“ und schlussfolgert: „Wer der Bulldozer-Politik lediglich zuschaut […] darf nicht überrascht sein, wenn geschätzte Regeln und Institutionen bald in Trümmern liegen.“ Dies gilt auch für die zwingende Norm (ius cogens) des völkerrechtlichen Gewaltverbots. Mit jedem Verstoß – und jedem Verzicht darauf, einen solchen Verstoß öffentlich zu verurteilen – wird das zwischenstaatliche Gewaltverbot zwar nicht rechtlich, aber de facto geschwächt. Die Folge ist größere Unsicherheit – vor allem für solche Länder, die militärisch mit den Großmächten nicht Schritt halten können.

Dennoch mehrten sich nach der Entführung Maduros Stimmen, die argumentierten, dass die Entscheidung politischer Führungspersonen, diese Intervention öffentlich nicht zu verurteilen, zwar völkerrechtlich falsch, jedoch realpolitisch geboten sei. Denn schließlich seien Deutschland und Europa nach wie vor auf den militärischen Schutz der USA angewiesen. Wie nicht zuletzt die neue Nationale Sicherheitsstrategie der Trump-Regierung und die Debatte um Grönland zeigen, berücksichtigt diese Sichtweise jedoch zu wenig, dass auf diesen Schutz bereits jetzt vermutlich kein Verlass mehr ist. Daher müssen Deutschland und Europa nicht nur selbst wehrhafter werden, sondern auch ihre außen- und sicherheitspolitischen Beziehungen diversifizieren. Hierfür ist auch wichtig, dass sie sich glaubwürdig als Partner präsentieren können, welche für eine regelbasierte internationale Ordnung eintreten und das zwischenstaatliche Gewaltverbot hochhalten. Den Eindruck politischer Doppelmoral zu erwecken, steht diesem Ziel entgegen. Ein klares Bekenntnis zum Völkerrecht ist daher nicht nur normativ und rechtlich geboten, sondern auch aus pragmatischen Gründen.

Officials allege that an empty coffin was placed over concealed bags of charcoal in a hearse.

The Security Council armed with veto powers. Credit: UN Photo/Manuel Elías

By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Feb 17 2026 (IPS)

As the campaign for the next Secretary-General gathers momentum – at a relatively slow pace – there is widespread speculation that any candidate running for the post of UN chief will have to abide by the dictates of a politically hostile White House or face a veto in the Security Council.

So far, there are only two declared candidates: former Chilean President Michelle Bachelet and former Director-General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Rafael Grossi from Argentina—with more candidates expected to join the race.

The winning candidate, who will take office in January 2027, will be elected by the 15-member Security Council and subsequently ratified by the 193-member General Assembly (UNGA).

Annalena Baerbock, the president of UNGA, said the selection process is already underway, and the interactive dialogues with candidates have been scheduled for the week of 20 April, where they will present their “vision statements”.

Meanwhile, the US has publicly declared its opposition to some of the basic goals in the UN’s socio-economic agenda, including gender empowerment and policies relating to diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI), while dismissing climate change as “a hoax” and a “giant scam.”
The Trump administration has also downplayed human rights and adherence to international laws—two concepts ingrained in the UN system.

In an interview with the New York Times last January, President Trump said he does not “need international law” to guide his actions, arguing that only his own “morality” and “mind” will constrain his global powers.

So, what would be the fate of any candidate— male or female—who advocates these UN goals? Will there be a battle of the vetoes – as it happened in a bygone era?

Richard Gowan, Program Director, Global Issues and Institutions, International Crisis Group (ICG), who oversees ICG’s work on geopolitics, global trends in conflict and multilateralism, told IPS nobody knows how this race will end.

Obviously UN-watchers will be tracking the initial candidates’ vision statements and public appearances over the coming months, he pointed out.

“But diplomats in New York have a suspicion that the veto powers in the Security Council may suddenly announce support for a new candidate at the last minute to circumvent the entire public process. There is a strong sense that the U.S., China and Russia don’t want to be boxed in by the General Assembly.”

There is also a scenario, he said, where the veto powers cannot agree on a candidate, and the Council ends up grinding out discussions of a candidate right through to December.

“UN officials have even done some contingency planning for what happens if there is not an agreed candidate on 1 January 2027. It is possible that the Security Council might ask Guterres to hang on for a few months, although I don’t think either diplomats or Guterres want that outcome.”

There are definitely a few senior UN officials and ambassadors in New York who wonder if the Council could call on them at the very last minute, said Gowan.

Thomas G. Weiss, Presidential Professor Emeritus, Political Science, and Director Emeritus, Ralph Bunche Institute for International Studies at the CUNY Graduate Center, told IPS it is hard to imagine anyone running for UNSG who would not run into a veto from Washington in a candidacy necessarily addressing the values of cooperation (multilateralism of any shape) as well as honestly discussing such issues as climate, gender (male or female), nuclear proliferation, Palestine, and sovereignty—all “hoaxes” or “con jobs” according to DJT (President Trump) and his junta.

Both the 1996 and 1981 elections, he said, provide “models.”

“The Chinese vetoes probably are the most relevant precedent for Washington going to the mat indefinitely until an “acceptable” candidate emerges. Let’s hope that person is as competent as the compromise of 1996, Kofi Annan”, he declared.

In 1981, Salim Ahmed Salim of Tanzania, was backed by the Organization of African Unity, the Non-Aligned Movement and China. But his bid was blocked by a US veto.

In 1996, a second five-year term for Boutros Boutros-Ghali of Egypt was vetoed by the US – even though he received the support of 14 of 15 members in the Security Council.

In 1981, China cast a record 16 vetoes against Kurt Waldheim to prevent a third term, leading to his withdrawal and the selection of Javier Pérez de Cuéllar.

Meanwhile, there has been an intense campaign for a female UN chief, the first in the 81-year history of the UN. But the US has remained tight-lipped on the widely supported proposal.

The last 9 secretaries-general, all males, include:

António Guterres (Portugal), who took office in January 2017;
Ban Ki-moon (Republic of Korea), from January 2007 to December 2016;
Kofi A. Annan (Ghana), January 1997 to December 2006;
Boutros Boutros-Ghali (Egypt), January 1992 to December 1996;
Javier Pérez de Cuéllar (Peru), January 1982 to December 1991;
Kurt Waldheim (Austria), January 1972 to December 1981;
U Thant (Burma, now Myanmar), who served from November 1961, when he was appointed acting Secretary-General (he was formally appointed Secretary-General in November 1962), to December 1971;
Dag Hammarskjöld (Sweden), from April 1953 until his death in a plane crash in Africa in September 1961; and
Trygve Lie (Norway), who held office from February 1946 to his resignation in November 1952.

As for the U.S., said Gowan, “I don’t believe that Washington has settled on a candidate yet. But the Trump administration is definitely conscious that they have the power to reshape the political culture of the organization if they find someone who aligns with their views”.

He said U.S. diplomats have told other veto powers that they will hold back on various reform proposals and cuts until they have their own candidate as Secretary-General.

A lot of UN members assume that the U.S. won’t accept a female Secretary-General but I think that Washington could back a woman if she was a strong social conservative and willing to make large cuts to the UN system, he argued.

“Right now, there is not an obvious female candidate meeting those criteria, though. I think some candidates who could never align with the U.S. on things like development and diversity are already stepping out of the race.”

Meanwhile, there is a reason that Mia Mottley has gone from being the putative front runner to refocusing on domestic politics.

“I also think that all candidates recognize that they are going to have to talk a lot more about how they will advance the UN’s work on peace and security, which is a priority not only for the U.S. but a lot of member states.”

“That said, one senior UN diplomat recently told me that they cannot see Global South countries accepting another Western candidate after Guterres, regardless of gender. The non-Western members of the Security Council could create a blocking minority in the Security Council to keep candidates from U.S. allies out,” declared Gowan.

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');