Africa

It is the first royal tomb to be found since King Tutankhaman's over a century ago.

The health minister says the patients have recovered, and should not be stigmatised.

Coalition partners object to a hike in VAT, forcing Enoch Godongwana to postpone his budget speech.

Atalanta's Ademola Lookman says comments by his coach Gian Piero Gasperini describing him as "one of the worst penalty takers" were "deeply disrespectful".

The Dutch Minister of Culture says he hopes this move will address the "historical injustice".

Abdullahi Abdi said the achievement had made all his "difficulties and sacrifices" worthwhile.

In a powerful appeal to the world’s largest economies during the G20 Summit, November 2024, UN Secretary-General António Guterres called for urgent climate action and reform of international institutions, warning that current systems are failing to meet global challenges. Credit: UN Photo/Gustavo Stephan

By Danny Bradlow
PRETORIA, South Africa, Feb 19 2025 (IPS)

US president Donald Trump’s recent actions seem designed to reassert American power and demonstrate that it is still the dominant global power and is capable of bullying weaker nations into following America’s lead.

He has shown contempt for international collaboration by withdrawing from the UN climate negotiations and the World Health Organization. His officials have also indicated that they will not participate in upcoming G20 meetings because he does not like the policies of South Africa, the G20 president for 2025.

In addition, he’s shown a lack of concern for international solidarity by halting US aid programmes and by undermining efforts to keep businesses honest. He has demonstrated his contempt for allies by imposing tariffs on their exports.

These actions demand a response from the rest of the international community that mitigates the risk to the well-being of people and planet and the effective management of global affairs.
My research on global economic governance suggests that history can offer some guidance on how to shape an effective response.

Such a response should be based on a realistic assessment of the configuration of global forces. It should seek to build tactical coalitions between state and non-state actors in both the global south and the global north who can agree on clear and limited objectives.

The following three historical lessons help explain this point.

Cautionary lessons

The first lesson is about the dangers of being overoptimistic in assessing the potential for change. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, the US was confronting defeat in the war in Vietnam, high inflation and domestic unrest, including the assassination of leading politicians and the murder of protesting students.

The US was also losing confidence in its ability to sustain the international monetary order it had established at the Bretton Woods conference in 1944.

In addition, the countries of the global south were calling for a new international economic order that was more responsive to their needs. Given the concerns about the political and economic situation in the US and the relative strength of the Soviet bloc at the time, this seemed a realistic demand.

In August 1971, President Richard Nixon, without any international consultations, launched what became known as the Nixon Shock. He broke the link between gold and the US dollar, thereby ending the international monetary system established in 1944. He also imposed a 10% surcharge on all imports into the US.

When America’s European allies protested and sought to create a reformed version of the old monetary order, US treasury secretary John Connolly informed them that the dollar was our currency but your problem.

Over the course of the 1970s, US allies in western Europe, Asia and all countries that participated in the old Bretton Woods system were forced to accept what the US preferred: a market-based international monetary system in which the US dollar became the dominant currency.

The US, along with its allies in the global north, also defeated the calls for a new international economic order and imposed their neo-liberal economic order on the world.

The second cautionary lesson highlights the importance of building robust tactical coalitions. In 1969, the International Monetary Fund member states agreed to authorise the IMF to create special drawing rights, the IMF’s unique reserve asset.

At the time, many IMF developing country member states advocated establishing a link between development and the special drawing rights. This would enable those countries most in need of additional resources to access more than their proportionate share of special drawing rights to fund their development.

All developing countries supported this demand. But they couldn’t agree on how to do it. The rich countries were able to exploit these differences and defeat the proposed link between the special drawing rights and development.

As a result, the special drawing rights are now distributed to all IMF member states according to their quotas in the IMF. This means that most allocations go to the rich countries who do not need them and have no obligation to share them with developing countries.

A third lesson arises from the successful Jubilee 2000 campaign to forgive the debts of low-income developing countries experiencing debt crises. This campaign, supported by a secretariat in the United Kingdom, eventually involved: civil society organisations and activists in 40 countries a petition signed by 21 million people and governments in both creditor and debtor countries.

These efforts resulted in the cancellation of the debts of 35 developing countries. These debts, totalling about US$100 billion, were owed primarily to bilateral and multilateral official creditors.

They were also a demonstration of the political power that can be generated by the combined actions of civil society organisations and governments in both rich and poor countries.

They can force the most powerful and wealthy institutions and individuals in the world to accept actions that, while requiring them to make affordable sacrifices, benefit low-income countries and potentially poor communities within those states.

What conclusions should be drawn?

We shouldn’t under-estimate the power of the US or the determination of the MAGA movement to use that power. However, their power is not absolute. It is constrained by the relative decline in US power as countries such as China and India gain economic and political strength.

In addition, there are now mechanisms for international cooperation, such as the G20, where states can coordinate their actions and gain tactical victories that are meaningful to people and planet.

But gaining such victories will require the following:

Firstly, the formation of tactical coalitions that include states from both the global south and the global north. If these states cooperate around limited and shared objectives they can counter the vested interests around the world that support Trump’s objectives.

Secondly, a special kind of public-private partnership in which states and non-state actors set aside their differences and agree to cooperate to achieve limited shared objectives. Neither states alone nor civil society groups alone were able to defeat the vested interests that opposed debt relief in the late 1990s. Working together they were able to defeat powerful creditor interests and gain debt relief for the poorest states.

Thirdly, this special partnership will only be possible if there’s general agreement on both the diagnosis of the problem and on the general contours of the solution. This was the case with the debt issue in the 1990s.

There are good candidates for such collaborative actions. For example, many states and non-state actors agree that international financial institutions need to be reformed and made more responsive to the needs of those member states that actually use their services but lack voice and vote in their governance.

The institutions also need to be more accountable to those affected by their policies and practices. They also agree that large corporations and financial institutions should pay their fair share of taxes and should be environmentally and socially responsible.

The urgency of the challenges facing the global community demands that the world begin countering Trump as soon as possible. South Africa as the current chair of the G20 has a special responsibility to ensure that this year the G20, together with its engagement groups, acts creatively and responsibly in relation to people and planet.

Source: Conversation Africa

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');  

Excerpt:

Daniel D. Bradlow is Professor/Senior Research Fellow, Centre for the Advancement of Scholarship, University of Pretoria, South Africa.

Children in Gaza stand on debris from a destroyed building. February 2025. Credit: UN News

By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Feb 19 2025 (IPS)

President Trump—whose rash and ill-conceived proposals continue unabated—has threatened to “seize Gaza,” turn it into a “Riviera of the Middle East,” and move Palestinians to Egypt and Jordan, two longstanding American allies who depend heavily on US support for their survival.

The US President has also hinted that both countries would suffer either cutbacks or elimination of billions of dollars in economic and military aid —if they refuse to cooperate with him.

Is this for real or just an empty threat?

The proposed seizure of Gaza has been condemned by virtually all Arab leaders who have long advocated a full-fledged Palestinian homeland in the Gaza Strip

In an interview with Christiane Amanpour, Chief International Anchor for Cable News Network (CNN), Prince Turki Al-Faisal, a former Saudi ambassador to the US and UK, was quoted as saying Trump’s Gaza strategy is a “mad ethnic cleansing plan.”

Dr Ramzy Baroud, a journalist and Editor of The Palestine Chronicle, told IPS Arabs cannot accept Trump’s ethnic cleansing plan simply because doing so will destabilize the entire region and all of their regimes.

The repercussions of the original ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in 1948 are still felt throughout the Middle East to this day, he said.

At that time, the majority of the native population of the Palestinian homeland was displaced, around 800,000, most of whom remained displaced within historic Palestine.

Displacing a population of 2.2 million, following a genocide that has ignited rage across the Middle East and around the world, he argued, is a suicidal move for Arab regimes that are already struggling in a desperate search for legitimacy.

“I believe Trump already knows this, but is using the threats to put pressure on Arab regimes to come up with an ‘alternative’ plan aimed at disarming the Palestinian resistance, thus meeting Israel halfway. But in essence, the Arabs have no control over the outcome of the war in Gaza”.

If Israel has failed to disarm Gaza after 15 months of a war of extermination, the Arabs won’t be able to do so, said Dr Baroud, author of six books and a Non-resident Senior Research Fellow at the Center for Islam and Global Affairs (CIGA).

In an interview with FRANCE 24, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said Trump’s plan at “ethnic cleansing is not acceptable in our world”.

“In the search for solutions, we must not make the problem worse. It is vital to stay true to the bedrock of international law. It is essential to avoid any form of ethnic cleansing,” Guterres told the U.N. Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People.

Addressing members of the Committee last week, Guterres said: “At its essence, the exercise of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people is about the right of Palestinians to simply live as human beings in their own land.”

However, he said, “we have seen the realization of those rights steadily slip farther out of reach” as well as “a chilling, systematic dehumanization and demonization of an entire people.”

Dr Baroud said Prince Turki Al-Faisal is correct to call it “a mad ethnic cleansing plan”. It is.

But it will fail if the Arabs understand American intentions and focus their energies on supporting Palestinian steadfastness in Gaza

Israel is in its weakest position in decades, and aside from empty threats and rhetoric, it has very few cards left. Arab unity is now key, and I believe that a collective response could positively influence inner Arab relations and re-center Palestine as the driving cause for all Arab nations.

In fact, this could be the chance for the Arab League to matter once more, after decades of marginalization and irrelevance, declared Dr Baroud.

Meanwhile, when US Secretary of State Marco Rubio was in the Middle East last week, he was able to gauge the widespread Arab opposition to Trump’s plan, but apparently downplayed the proposal.

The New York Times quoted Rubio as saying Trump was merely trying to “get a reaction” and “stir” other nations into providing more assistance to post-war Gaza.

King Abdullah II of Jordan, leading a country which is already home to about 700,00 Palestinian, Syrian and Iraqi refugees, told Trump during a White House meeting last week that he is ready to offer a home to about 2,000 Palestinian children in need of medical care.

And perhaps nothing more.

Incidentally, the wife of the Jordanian King is Queen Rania, who is of Palestinian descent.

The proposed takeover of Gaza –and the forcible transfer of Palestinians—are considered both a war crime and a crime against humanity, according to the International Criminal Court (ICC).

Janina Dill, co-director of the Oxford Institute for Ethics, Law and Armed Conflict, was quoted in the New York Times, as saying: “Trump is just casually making major international crimes into policy proposals. He just normalizes violating, or proposing to violate, the absolute bedrock principles of international law”.

Meanwhile, Reuter’s reported that Egypt’s President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi will not travel to Washington for talks at the White House, if the agenda includes Trump’s plan to expel Palestinians from Gaza, according to two Egyptian security sources.

In a call with al-Sisi on 1 February, the US president extended an open invitation to the Egyptian President to visit the White House. No date has been set for any such visit, a US official said.

The Gaza takeover will also be the primary topic on the agenda of an emergency Arab Summit meeting scheduled to take place in Cairo March 4.

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');  

Peers and scholars reflect on the role Muhsin Hendricks played in the LGBTQ+ and Islamic communities.

Peers and scholars reflect on the role Muhsin Hendricks played in the LGBTQ+ and Islamic communities.

Peers and scholars reflected on the role Hendricks played within the LGBTQ+ and Islamic communities.

The U.S. efforts to pressure Ukraine to accept significant territorial losses to Russia in exchange for ending the war are expected to increase. Photo: Oleksandr Ratushniak / UNDP Ukraine

By Vyacheslav Likhachev
KYIV, Feb 18 2025 (IPS)

U.S. President Donald Trump and his special envoy for Ukraine and Russia, Keith Kellogg, have recently expressed confidence and optimism about the prospect of “ending” the war in Ukraine. No details have been made public; however, according to the new administration’s vision, both sides must make concessions to achieve peace. Yet it remains unclear not only what the proposed concessions are but also how exactly the US intends to persuade the parties to compromise.

President Trump has so far limited himself to vague threats to impose tariffs on non-existent Russian imports to the U.S. General Kellogg, for his part, has transparently hinted that Ukraine should abandon its unrealistic desire to liberate its territory occupied by Russia.

It is more likely that the plan is designed to satisfy the ambitions of Russian leader Vladimir Putin, albeit not to the maximalist extent. So, with a Trump administration, he may be closer than ever to getting his way in Ukraine

The U.S. efforts to pressure Ukraine to accept significant territorial losses to Russia in exchange for ending the war are expected to increase. In contrast to the various options discussed at the expert level last year, the new Trump administration has avoided making any commitments to future security guarantees for Ukraine.

Of course, it is still possible that a significant part of the U.S. proposal remains non-public. However, it is more likely that the plan is designed to satisfy the ambitions of Russian leader Vladimir Putin, albeit not to the maximalist extent. So, with a Trump administration, he may be closer than ever to getting his way in Ukraine.

In fact, this proposed deal appears indistinguishable from the Chinese-Brazilian peace plan discussed at various international venues last year. Both approaches would “freeze” the conflict, giving at least implicit recognition of Russia’s occupation of swathes of Ukrainian territory, as well as a permanent foothold from which Russia can launch future aggressions.

It is obvious why China and Russia’s other authoritarian allies would favor this plan. But why has it found support in the White House?

The general logic is as follows: Ukraine is not in a position to liberate all of its territories in the foreseeable future (especially not without very costly and politically fraught U.S. assistance); continuing hostilities only bring further suffering; and military activities, therefore, should stop as soon as possible.

This framework is deeply flawed and far from a fair resolution. However, other options in the current global political configuration are beginning to look simply unrealistic.

If somehow it is possible to add guarantees against further Russian aggression to the “Trump—Kellogg plan,” it will at least look workable. Proponents of this model cite the experience of post-war Germany and North Korea.

Persuading Ukraine to renounce territorial integrity would not be easy, but it is possible. It is hard to imagine what could make the Kremlin stop its troops.

It was only last summer that Vladimir Putin demanded that territories that Russia does not de facto control be handed over to him as a condition for a ceasefire. In its own perverse way, this is logical – like dealing with any common gangster, peace always comes at a cost.

Also, it is more difficult to imagine, however, what security commitments could be strong enough to prevent further Russian aggression and war crimes. More precisely, what guarantees would Western leaders, who are so afraid of escalation and any hint of a direct clash with Russia, agree to accept? But even if we assume that a solution to these dilemmas could be found, we would be required to accept the occupation as irreversible.

Attention should, therefore, be paid to the following aspect, which is usually omitted from the analysis: What is happening in Ukraine’s occupied territories is fundamentally different from the German situation half a century ago.

The Soviet Union did not deny post-war Germany’s right to statehood (no matter how much of a puppet the East German regime was), and Moscow did not deny the German people’s right to exist.

In the case of Ukraine, however, Russia is not simply trying to undermine Ukrainian statehood – it is trying to destroy Ukraine as a nation and as a people. Ukrainians, from the point of view of official Kremlin ideology, are Russians who have forgotten that they are Russian, and Russia must remind them of this fact.

This is playing out in the occupied territories, where Russian forces are implementing a regime of forced passportization, Russification of education, and the systemic persecution of any religious communities except those who were forcibly annexed to the Russian Orthodox Church under the leadership of the Moscow Patriarchate.

The practice of “Filtration Camps,” through which a significant part of the population of the occupied territories passed, is not without reason so reminiscent of Chinese methods of suppressing, or some would say, destroying the Uyghur minority.

What we are seeing in occupied Ukraine is a general pattern of social re-education on an Orwellian level.

The effectiveness of Russian methods should not be underestimated. Violence, propaganda, and bribery of those ready to imitate loyalty do their job. Ukrainians in the occupied territories are being turned into Russians. Those who think that this can be resolved once peace has been negotiated are either playing dumb or are truly naive.

Governments that are supporting Ukraine should instead focus on military aid as well as on accountability for Russia’s crime of aggression and the atrocities taking place against civilians.

The self-soothing illusion that the China-Brazil plan (or should I say “the Trump-Kellogg” one now?) will bring peace to Ukraine is a destructive one, and those in the West — including the U.S. administration —tempted to support this idea must wake up to the consequences of appeasing Putin.

Should the conflict in Ukraine be “frozen” by such an accord, all it will do is show dictators and autocrats that national sovereignty and the right to self-determination are negotiable. Ultimately, this won’t provide any of us any peace or comfort, but especially not those Ukrainians forced to remain under Russia’s yoke.

Excerpt:

Vyacheslav Likhachev, based in Kyiv, is an expert at the Center for Civil Liberties, a human rights organization that won the 2022 Nobel Peace Prize 

Lydia Mugambe told police her alleged victim had been "acting funny", Oxford Crown Court hears.

The BBC meets residents of Goma following the rebel takeover and those being forced by the M23 to leave camps.

The BBC meets residents of Goma following the rebel takeover and those being forced by the M23 to leave camps.

The BBC meets residents of Goma following the rebel takeover and those being forced by the M23 to leave camps.

After fleeing conflict, over 100 athletes from across Africa attend trials in Kenya in the hope of becoming part of the Refugee Olympic Team.

After fleeing conflict, over 100 athletes from across Africa attend trials in Kenya in the hope of becoming part of the Refugee Olympic Team.

More than 200 civilians have been killed by paramilitaries, a rights group says.

Pravind Jugnauth was charged with money laundering, which he denies, following a dramatic arrest.