Africa

Residents suspect the demolitions are aimed at gentrifying the waterfront in Nigeria's biggest city, but officials deny this.

Residents suspect the demolitions are aimed at gentrifying the waterfront in Nigeria's biggest city, but officials deny this.

Evelis Cano, mother of political prisoner Jack Tantak Cano, pleads with the police for her son’s release outside a detention centre in Caracas, Venezuela, 20 January 2026. Credit: Gaby Oraa/Reuters via Gallo Images

By Inés M. Pousadela
MONTEVIDEO, Uruguay, Feb 2 2026 (IPS)

When US special forces seized Nicolás Maduro and his wife from the presidential residence in Caracas on 3 January, killing at least 24 Venezuelan security officers and 32 Cuban intelligence operatives in the process, many in the Venezuelan opposition briefly dared hope. They speculated that intervention might finally bring the democratic transition thwarted when Maduro entrenched himself in power after losing the July 2024 election. But within hours, those hopes were crushed. Trump announced the USA would now ‘run’ Venezuela and Vice-President Delcy Rodríguez was sworn in to replace Maduro. Venezuela’s sovereignty had been violated twice: first by an authoritarian regime that usurped the popular will, and then by an external power that deliberately violated international law.

A cynical intervention

Under Trump, the USA has abandoned any pretence of promoting democracy. Trump wrapped the intervention in the rhetoric of anti-narcotics operations while openly salivating over Venezuela’s oil reserves, rare earth deposits and investment opportunities. He repeatedly made clear that US regional hegemony is the number one priority. His contempt for Venezuelans’ right to self-determination was explicit: when asked about opposition leader María Corina Machado, Trump dismissed her as lacking ‘respect’ and ‘capacity to lead’. The message to Venezuela’s democratic movement was clear: your struggle doesn’t matter, only our interests do.

Ironically, the US intervention achieved what years of Maduro’s propaganda failed to do, giving anti-imperialist rhetoric a shot in the arm. For decades, Latin American authoritarian regimes have justified repression by pointing to the threat of US intervention, even though this was a largely historical grievance. Not anymore: Trump has handed every Latin American dictator the perfect justification for continuing authoritarian rule.

The global response has been equally revealing. The loudest defenders of national sovereignty are authoritarian powers such as China, Iran and Russia: states that routinely violate their citizens’ rights expressed their ‘solidarity with the people of Venezuela’ and positioned themselves as champions of international law. By blatantly violating a foundational principle of the post-1945 international order, Trump made the leaders of some of the world’s most repressive regimes look like the adults in the room. And across Latin America, the political conversation has now shifted dramatically: the question is no longer how to restore democracy in Venezuela, but how to prevent the next US military adventure in Latin America.

Authoritarianism continues

Meanwhile, Venezuela’s authoritarian regime remains intact. Maduro may be in a New York courtroom, but the structures that kept him in power – the corrupt military, embedded Cuban intelligence, patronage networks and the repressive apparatus – continue unchanged. Rodríguez will likely try to run down the clock, claiming Maduro could return at any moment to avoid calling elections while quietly negotiating oil deals with US companies and reasserting authoritarian control. For both Rodríguez and Trump, democracy seems like an inconvenient obstacle to resource extraction.

For Venezuelan civil society, this creates real dilemmas. As she was sworn in, Rodríguez denounced the operation that put her in charge and vowed that Venezuela would ‘never again be a colony of any empire’. She has wrapped herself in the flag, framing regime continuity as a patriotic stand against western imperialism, and can now easily paint opposition activists who have long demanded international pressure for democracy as treasonous collaborators with foreign powers. This is despite being an insider of a regime that welcomed Cuban intelligence, Iranian oil traders and Russian military advisers, and is now negotiating oil deals with the USA and crossing its own red line by promising legal changes to enable private investment.

A Venezuelan solution for Venezuela

But there may be some cracks in the regime. With Maduro gone, frictions inside the ruling party have become apparent. For instance, there have been obvious disagreements on how to handle the pressure to free Venezuela’s over 800 political prisoners. These may yield opportunities the democracy movement can exploit.

This is the time for the democratic opposition to reclaim the narrative. In the immediate aftermath of the intervention, families of political prisoners mounted vigils outside detention centres, demanding releases the government has only partially delivered. Civil society must amplify these voices, making clear that any transitional arrangement requires the dismantling of the repressive apparatus, not merely a change of faces at the top.

A broad coalition of civil society organisations has issued 10 demands that chart a path to democratic transition. They call for the immediate and unconditional release of political prisoners, the dismantling of irregular armed groups, unfettered access for human rights monitors and humanitarian aid and, crucially, a free and fair presidential election with international observers. These demands deserve international backing, not as conditions for oil contracts, but as non-negotiable requirements for any government that can claim to represent Venezuela.

Venezuela’s democratic forces can either accept marginalisation as Trump and Rodríguez carve up their country’s resources, or use this chaotic moment to advance a genuinely Venezuelan democratic agenda. That means rejecting both Maduro’s authoritarianism and Trump’s intervention, and insisting that any legitimacy Rodríguez’s government claims must come from Venezuelan voters, not US armed forces or oil contracts. Any window of opportunity may however be closing fast. The question is whether Venezuela’s democratic movement can seize it to build the country they have strived for, or whether they will remain spectators while others decide their fate.

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

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

 

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

Számos furcsa jelenséget produkált tavaly Szlovákiában az időjárás. Különös volt például, hogy egyfajta időjárási típus tartósan megmaradt, majd hirtelen változás jött, és teljesen más, ellentétes jellegű időjárás következett, általában ismét tartós jelleggel – közölte a honlapján a Szlovák Hidrometeorológiai Intézet (SHMÚ)

Since 2016, those who can prove their ancestors came from Africa have been able to get Ghanaian nationality.

TASR: Tavaly Kassa megyéből kapták a legtöbb riasztást a tűzoltók, 6.305 helyszínre vonultak ki a megyében. A legkevesebb - 3.170 – bevetés Trencsén megyében volt – tájékoztatta a TASR-t Lívia Výrostko, a HaZZ szóvivője. „A riasztások 29%-a tűzesetek, 36%-a műszaki segítségkérés, 25%-a közlekedési balesetek miatt érkezett" - közölték a tűzoltók. 2025-ben összesen közel 1,4 millió kilométert tettek meg a tűzoltók teljes felszereléssel, a legtöbbet, közel 234.000 kilométert Besztercebánya megyében.

The US president labels Noah a "total loser" over a joke he told on stage during the awards ceremony.

Clinton Nyapara Mogesa is said to have been recruited in Qatar to fight for Russian forces in Ukraine.

The 24-year-old bagged her second-ever Grammy beating three Nigerians and a Ugandan.

They were among 177 people seized last month from three churches in northern Kaduna state.

Dank seiner beiden Siege an den Australian Open liegt der Lausanner neu auf Platz 113. Belinda Bencic macht trotz ihrem frühen Aus einen Platz gut und ist neu die Weltnummer 9.

Während Al-Hilal munter Spieler aus Europa verpflichtet, bekommt Al-Nassr-Star Cristiano Ronaldo diesen Winter keine Verstärkung. Das verärgert den Portugiesen.

South Africa's sports minister Gayton McKenzie says "no formal decision" has been taken to relocate the 2026 Women's Africa Cup of Nations away from Morocco.

South Africa's sports minister Gayton McKenzie says "no formal decision" has been taken to relocate the 2026 Women's Africa Cup of Nations away from Morocco.

A developed Africa starts with nutrition in safe hands. Credit: Busani Bafana/IPS

By Busani Bafana
BULAWAYO, Zimbabwe, Feb 2 2026 (IPS)

Hunger shadowed Mercy Lung’aho’s childhood, fueling her campaign to promote nutrition as a foundation for Africa’s development.

As lead for the Food Security, Nutrition and Health Program at the International Institute for Tropical Agriculture (IITA), this certified nutritionist and researcher, with more than 20 years of championing development, is advocating for an integrated approach combining agri-food and health systems for food and nutrition security on the continent.

In a continent where one in three children are stunted, providing nutritious food is urgent for the development of Africa. For Lungaho, nutrition research is everything.

“I want to leave a legacy of a nourished Africa,” Lung’aho says, emphasizing that at IITA, nutrition is not a buzzword but the core of its programs across Africa.

According to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), approximately 307 million people in Africa were undernourished in 2024. Malnutrition is the lack of correct and adequate nutrients, like vitamins, proteins, and minerals, needed to stay healthy and functional. Signs of malnutrition include stunted growth, wasting and being underweight.

“Regardless of how you define it, nutrition begins with what we eat,” she says. “Health begins with what we eat. Agriculture produces what we eat and it is really important that one of the lenses that agriculture and agricultural research have is nutrition.”

Despite its vast arable land and abundant water resources,  Africa  is a net food importer. Africa is off the mark on SDG2 and SDG3 relating to zero hunger, health and wellbeing. Projects indicate that nearly 60% of all chronically undernourished people will be in Africa by that time. It gets worse; Africa is the only region where the number of children under five suffering from chronic malnutrition is increasing.

Mercy Lung’aho, International Institute for Tropical Agriculture’s (IITA) Food Security, Nutrition and Health Programme lead.

Excerpts:

IPS: What  breakthroughs in nutrition research have you made at IITA and what has been their  impact on food security?

Lung’aho: One of the things that we advocate as IITA is food safety. If food is not safe, it is not food. There are now several products that help ensure food safety, like Aflasafe, which inhibits the growth of aflatoxin (a toxin produced by fungi), and farmers use it when they plant either soybeans, groundnuts, or maize. Aflatoxin is one of the most poisonous things in our food—it stunts the growth of children and can lead to cancers like liver cancer. In my country, Kenya, we have had episodes where acute toxicity from aflatoxin has been fatal.

There is one product I am really excited about. Our breeders have also worked on provitamin A maize and it is orange in color. The grain inhibits the growth of aflatoxin. Provitamin A maize is not just to reduce vitamin A deficiency, which causes night blindness—it is also coming in as a safety measure for populations and also reduces exposure to aflatoxins in communities. With a grant from Harvest Plus, we are doing a study in northern Nigeria, where we are now assessing real-life evidence in communities that have eaten ProVitamin A maize and whose exposure to aflatoxins has been limited.

Not only do we provide nourishment to the population, but we also ensure the safety of the food system.

How does IITA integrate traditional knowledge with modern nutrition science to enhance crop quality?

Lung’aho: I think IITA is one of the few centers that value consumer research. For example, the tricot methodology (triadic comparisons of technologies) is a participatory research approach where farmers act as researchers to test and identify the most suitable agricultural technologies, such as crop varieties, for their performance under local conditions.

It involves comparing small sets of three technologies at a time in “triads” and collecting data on their farms under their normal practices.  We don’t call the consumer a ‘beneficiary,’ but a core designer. We view farmers and consumers as integral members of the team, understanding that their work is a collaborative effort. We always try to understand the consumers’ perspective first before we say we have understood a problem. We ensure that their voices are heard and their opinions are included even in some of our methodologies. We then go to the farmers and inform them of our findings, compare what is available on the market with what consumers want, and ask them for their opinions. Such feedback is integrated into the research.

How do you measure the success of nutrition integration interventions in farming communities?

Lung’aho: We have globally recognized indicators for measuring impact, such as the Minimum Dietary Diversity for Women (MDD-W)—a population-level indicator of diet diversity validated for women aged 15–49 and the proportion of the population who can afford a healthy diet.

I look for evidence in the community to see if the interventions are effective, and I observe food availability in the market. Working in communities and around lunchtime, you can see women cooking, and you can see fires in homes—but you have communities where at lunchtime nobody is cooking and in the evening, families have nothing to eat.

When you go to economists, they look at impact; they prioritize the indicators—that’s what they look at.

I am very practical. I know hunger not just by name, but because I’ve slept hungry. There was no food at home and we would go to bed hungry.

For me, the presence of food in the home and in the market is evidenced by seeing children at schools during lunchtime with packed food, even if it consists of a small portion of ugali and vegetables—this indicates that we are making progress. We are moving the needle. However, the high-level evidence, which examines the SDGs and evaluates our progress, indicates that more work is needed.

How has IITA leveraged technology and data analytics to enhance nutrition outcomes in agricultural projects?

Lung’aho: In IITA, data is currency. We generate a lot of data and we have a lead for data who is very interested in making sure that that data doesn’t sit on shelves, but we are able to learn from past data and new data is talking to past data to anticipate the future.

So for that, we’re leveraging a lot of artificial intelligence and machine learning. We are using systems thinking and systems dynamics  that look at the whole system rather than its elements alone.

How can systems work better? I think we are among the first institutions in the world to really ask the question of how artificial intelligence and machine learning can work better for diets and nutrition in Africa.

There is a need to standardize tools so that we are collecting the same data—not comparing apples and oranges—as well as the harmonization of tools and indicators. Countries need to create a nutrition data ecosystem. Governments will respond by saying, “You (already) have so much data. Why are you not using that?” If data cannot communicate with each other, we are left in the dark. Having that ecosystem will show countries why data is important and how they can leverage existing data and new data to move forward.

Data has to be in the forefront of what we collect to understand nutrition problems. If you want Africa to grow, nutrition is the answer, and I’m the number one advocate. This is a call to action to all African countries. We need to take nutrition seriously. In our generation, we must leave a legacy of a nourished Africa.

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');  

President Donald Trump Joins Faith Leaders in Prayer – Credit: The White House
 
According to the UN, Sunday marked the start of World Interfaith Harmony Week, a time to emphasize that mutual understanding and interreligious dialogue are essential to building a culture of peace. The week was established to promote harmony among all people, regardless of their faith.

By Azza Karam
NEW YORK, Feb 2 2026 (IPS)

Several events, meetings, consultations, initiatives, etc. taking place among faith-inspired, ‘faith-based’ and a variety of other similar efforts, over the past year, in the United States especially, concern me.

Coming from a background of human rights, international development, and humanitarian service, I have witnessed the arc of ‘none’ to increasing interest by Western governments in ‘religion’ – religious engagement, religion and development, religion and foreign policy, religious freedom, religious peacebuilding, or religion and peace, and more, including even religion and agriculture. Basically, religion and everything.

Non-Western governments within Africa and Asia, including areas overlapping with what we call (variably) “the Middle East”, have long been interested, and indeed actively engaging religious leaders and religious institutions.

As many scholars, observers, and foreign policy pundits have noted, the interest of such governments has often transcended any genuine fascination with faith, towards rather obvious instrumentalization of religious leaders, religious organisations and religious groups, in support of specific political agendas (e.g., making peace with Israel, legitimacy of corrupt – and violent – politically repressive leaders and regimes, etc.).

In fact, the marriage between select religious leaders/institutions/groups and some political actors goes back to the empires we have inherited pre-Westphalian states).

I recall some stories from my time serving as a staff member at the United Nations, and in other international fora. The first story revolves around one Arab and one Indian diplomat speaking with a European counterpart, during one of several UN Strategic Learning Exchanges on Religion, Development and Diplomacy, which I coordinated and facilitated, this one in 2014.

The discussion concerned how best to “benefit” from working with religious leaders to affirm a message of certain political parties, especially, albeit not only, around elections. The Arab patted the European on the back and said, with a smile and a wink: “you are finally catching up on how to use these religious leaders – congratulations my friend”. The Indian one, looking bemused, added “Yes. And be careful”.

Another story concerns another meeting I organised – in one of the basement meeting rooms of the UN – between UN officials and a diverse array of religious actors, around peace and mediation efforts, in select African and Asian conflict settings, early 2015.

A European Christian religious leader of a renowned multi-religious organisation made an intervention to address the concerns about “instrumentalization” of religious actors, which some faith-based NGO leaders were articulating.

While some faith representatives cautioned against religious actors being used to “rubber stamp decisions already made by governments and some intergovernmental organisations” (in the room were both UN and EU officials), this particular Western Christian religious leader spoke up and said, “I am not worried about that at all, in fact, I would like to say to my secular colleagues in this room, please use us… we can certainly benefit you… we are not common civil society actors, our mission makes us exceptional”.

My last story, is from my time serving as the secretary general of an international multireligious organisation which convenes religious leaders from diverse religious institutions around “deeply held and widely shared values”.

As soon as I became a member of the UN Secretary-General’s High Level Advisory Board on Effective Multilateralism, I arranged a meeting between some of my multi-religious Board members (religious leaders), and some members of this high Level UN SG’s Advisory Board.

The idea was to nurture a quiet but candid dialogue between pollical and religious leaders, around why and how multilateralism can be significantly strengthened by multireligious engagement.

I hasten to note that multireligious engagement, if served well, can be – as I have written and persistently argued – resistant to instrumentalization of select religious actors to serve any one particular governmental agenda. The latter is a feature I warn against, and small wonder, given developments from India to the United States, from Russia to Israel, and beyond.

Once again, I heard a religious leader invite the members of the SG’s Board to “use” their (religious) wisdom because of their “exceptional” mission (presumably the godly one). This time, later reflection among members of the UN SG Board led to noting that such multireligious engagement would be inadvisable, due to a concern about “Muslims” involved in such multireligious spaces.

Fast forward to 2026, one year after an increasingly belligerent US Presidential Administration’s record, which includes relatively ‘minor’ policy decisions such as transforming the name of the Ministry of Defence to the “Ministry of War”. And not so minor human rights abuses of citizens and immigrants, and some pointing to manipulation and outright disregard of the rule of law, both at home and abroad (I hope this is polite enough wording). Of course one dares not mention support to certain genocidal regimes killing thousands in the name of self-protection.

In this environment, I listen to conversations among some of the United States’ most esteemed faith-based organisations, all with a remarkable track record of serving humanity in all corners of the world. Who, apparently, are seeking to engage this Administration “constructively”, with some praising the “unprecedented” outreach of members of this Administration in engaging, largely (some would say exclusively), with certain Christian NGOs, certain Christian religious leaders, and certain Christian faith protagonists – no doubt to further noble objectives. Apparently, this is a form of strategic engagement of/with religion.

Even though there were likely some who felt uncomfortable with aspects of this rhetoric, the studiously diplomatic silences – including my own – about challenging anything said, was noteworthy. The bottom line is, “we need access to the White House… we need more resources to do our (good) work”.

Why was I silent? Because I am the quintessential ‘other’ whose outspokenness has already earned me the loss of a sense of ‘home’ and security, many times over. This is neither excuse nor justification, rather, an acknowledgement of cowardice.

Into this Kafkaesque reality, let me ask a few questions I am battling with: what will it take to speak truth to power publicly – the way Minnesotans and Palestinians are having to do with their own regimes? Is it strategic to be silent, or such consummate diplomats, especially when we work in the name of the ‘godly’ – being such “exceptional” actors?

Conversely, is this Administration which we endeavour to be so tactful with, being silent about it’s “divine mission”? Is being “nice and essentially a kind person with their heart in the right place”, and doing godly work, a good reason to work with those who are serving regimes which ignore the rule of law in their own nation and abroad? Does faith-based diplomacy mean we either collude, remain silent, or take the struggle to the streets?

If so, what difference is faith-based diplomacy and engagement actually making to civic engagement, to honoring human rights and the rule of law, or to serving principled leadership? Or do these simply not matter since it is the self-interests of the ruling and rich few, are what matters to determine the integrity of life, planet and leadership?

Perhaps we should ponder the advice of the Indian Diplomat, given to his Western counterpart 22 years ago: how can we “be careful”?

Professor Azza Karam serves as President of Lead Integrity; and Director of the Kahane UN Program, for Occidental College’s Diplomacy and World Affairs.

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');  

Dans l'édition de lundi : stratégie maritime de l'UE, démission d'un collaborateur de Fico, dossiers Epstein, centre de menaces hybrides, querelle sur le fromage chinois, pourparlers en Ukraine.

The post Les ambitions de Manfred Weber se heurtent au mur de Friedrich Merz appeared first on Euractiv FR.

The US signals that restoring democracy is no longer a priority and it is ready to work with Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger.

The US signals that restoring democracy is no longer a priority and it is ready to work with Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger.