Africa

An artist in Colombia draws an image of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Credit: UN Colombia/Jose Rios Source: UN News

By UN High Commission for Human Rights
GENEVA, Feb 6 2026 (IPS)

The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk has launched a USD 400 million funding appeal for 2026 to address global human rights needs, warning that with mounting crises, the world cannot afford a human rights system in crisis.

“The cost of our work is low; the human cost of underinvestment is immeasurable,” Türk told States at the launch. “In times of conflict and in times of peace, we are a lifeline for the abused, a megaphone for the silenced, a steadfast ally to those who risk everything to defend the rights of others.”

In 2025, staff working for the UN Human Rights Office in 87 countries observed more than 1,300 trials, supported 67,000 survivors of torture, documented tens of thousands of human rights violations, and contributed to the release of more than 4,000 people from arbitrary detention.

Türk also stressed that addressing inequalities and respecting economic and social rights are vital to peace and stability. “Human rights make economies work for everyone, rather than deepening exclusion and breeding instability,” he said.

The Office in 2025 worked with more than 35 governments on the human rights economy, which aims to align all economic policies with human rights. For example, in Djibouti, it helped conduct a human rights analysis of the health budget, with a focus on people with disabilities. It provided critical human rights analysis to numerous UN Country Teams working on sustainable development.

Türk outlined several consequences of reduced funding in 2025. For instance, the Office conducted only 5,000 human rights monitoring missions, a decrease from 11,000 in 2024. The Office’s programme in Myanmar suffered cuts of more than 60 percent. In Honduras, support for demilitarisation of the prison system and for justice and security sector reforms was reduced. In Chad, advocacy and support for nearly 600 detainees held without legal basis had to be discontinued.

“Our reporting provides credible information on atrocities and human rights trends at a time when truth is being eroded by disinformation and censorship. It informs deliberations both in the UN Security Council and the Human Rights Council, and is widely cited by international courts, providing critical evidence for accountability,” he said.

The liquidity crisis of the regular budget also significantly affected the work of the broader human rights ecosystem. For instance, 35 scheduled State party dialogues by UN Human Rights Treaty Bodies could not take place.

Four out of eight planned country visits by the Sub-Committee on Prevention of Torture had to be cancelled. UN Special Rapporteurs’ ability to carry out country visits was curtailed, and the Human Rights Council’s investigative bodies were unable to fulfil their mandates fully.

The UN Human Rights Chief also regretted that the Office lost approximately 300 staff out of a total of 2,000 and was forced to close or radically reduce its presence in 17 countries, erasing entire programmes critical for endangered, threatened, or marginalised communities, from Colombia and Guinea-Bissau to Tajikistan.

“All this is weakening our ‘Protection by Presence’ – a simple idea with powerful impact: that the physical presence of trained human rights officers on the ground deters violations and reduces harm,” Türk said.

In 2025, the Office’s approved regular budget was USD 246 million, but it received only USD 191.5 million, resulting in a USD 54.5 million shortfall. It had also requested USD 500 million in voluntary contributions and received only USD 257.8 million.

The UN Human Rights Chief thanked the 113 funding partners – Governments, multilateral donors, private entities, among others – who contributed to the 2025 budget and helped save and improve lives.

For 2026, the UN General Assembly has approved a regular budget of USD 224.3 million, which is based on assessed contributions from Member States. This amount is 10 per cent lower than in 2025, and further uncertainty remains about the actual amount the Office will receive due to the liquidity crisis the UN is facing.

Through its 2026 Appeal, the Office is requesting an additional USD 400 million in voluntary contributions.

“Historically, human rights account for an extremely small portion of all UN spending. We need to step up support for this low-cost, high-impact work that helps stabilise communities, builds trust in institutions, and supports lasting peace,” the High Commissioner said.

“And we need more unearmarked and timely contributions so we can respond quickly, as human rights cannot wait.”

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');  

Credit: Denis Balibouse/Reuters via Gallo Images

By Samuel King
BRUSSELS, Belgium, Feb 6 2026 (IPS)

In early January, an emergency UN Security Council meeting on Venezuela followed a familiar path of paralysis. Members clashed over the US government’s abduction of Nicolás Maduro, with many warning it set a dangerous precedent, but no resolution came.

This wasn’t exceptional. In 2024, permanent members cast eight vetoes, the highest since 1986. In 2025, the Council adopted only 44 resolutions, the lowest since 1991. Deep divisions prevented meaningful responses to Gaza and to conflicts in Myanmar, Sudan and Ukraine.

Designed in 1945, the Security Council is the UN’s most powerful body, tasked with maintaining international peace and security, but also crucially protecting the privileged position of the most powerful states following the Second World War. Of its 15 members, 10 are elected for two-year terms, but five – China, France, Russia, the UK and the USA – are permanent and have veto powers. A single veto can block any resolution, regardless of global support. The Council’s anachronistic structure reflects and reproduces outdated power dynamics.

Since launching its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, Russia has continually used its veto despite breaching the UN Charter. On Gaza, the USA vetoed four ceasefire proposals before the Council passed Resolution 2728 in March 2024, 171 days into Israel’s assault. By then over 10,000 people had been killed.

When the Council is gridlocked, it means more suffering on the ground. Civilian protection fails, peace processes stall and human rights crimes go unpunished.

The case for reform

Since the UN was established, the number of member states has quadrupled and the global population has grown from 2.5 to 8 billion. But former colonial powers that represent a minority of the world’s population still hold permanent seats while entire continents remain unrepresented.

Calls for reform have been made for decades, but they face a formidable challenge: reform requires amendment of the UN Charter, a process that needs a favourable two-thirds General Assembly vote, ratification by two-thirds of member states and approval from all five permanent Council members.

The African Union has advanced the clearest demand. Emphasising historical justice and equal power for the global south, it calls for the Council to be expanded to 26 members, with Africa holding two permanent seats with full veto rights and five non-permanent seats.

India has been particularly vocal in demanding a greater role on a reformed Council. The G4 – Brazil, Germany, India and Japan – has proposed expansion to 25 or 26 members with six new permanent seats: two for Africa, two for Asia and the Pacific, one for Latin America and the Caribbean and one for Western Europe. New permanent members would gain veto powers after a 10-to-15-year review period.

Uniting for Consensus, a group led by Italy that includes Argentina, Mexico, Pakistan and South Korea, opposes the creation of new permanent seats, arguing this would simply expand an existing oligarchy. Instead, they propose longer rotating terms and greater representation for underrepresented regions.

The five permanent members show varying degrees of openness to reform. France and the UK support expansion with veto powers, while the USA supports adding permanent African seats but without a veto. China backs new African seats, but virulently opposes Japan’s permanent membership, while Russia supports reform in principle but warns against making the Council ‘too broad’.

These positions reflect competition and a desire to prevent rivals gaining power. Current permanent members fear diluted influence, while states that see themselves as rising powers want the status and sway that comes with Council membership.

Adding new members could help redress the imbalance against the global south, but wouldn’t necessarily make the Council more effective, accountable and committed to protecting human lives and human rights, particularly if more states get veto powers.

A French-Mexican initiative from 2015 offers a more modest path: voluntary veto restraint in mass atrocity situations. The proposal asks permanent members to refrain from vetoes in cases of crimes against humanity, genocide and war crimes. This complements efforts to increase the political costs of vetoes, including the Code of Conduct signed by 121 states and General Assembly Resolution 76/262, which requires debate whenever a veto is cast.

New challenges

Now a new challenge has emerged from the Trump administration, which recently launched the Board of Peace at the World Economic Forum in Davos. This has mutated from a temporary institution set up by a Security Council resolution to govern over Gaza into a seemingly permanent one that envisages a broader global role under Trump’s personal control. Its membership skews toward authoritarian regimes, and human rights don’t get a mention in its draft charter.

Instead of legitimising the Board of Peace, efforts should focus on Security Council reform to address the two fundamental flaws of representation and veto power. Accountability and transparency must also be enhanced. Civil society must have space to engage with the Council and urge states to prioritise the UN Charter over self-interest.

Some momentum exists. The September 2024 Pact for the Future committed leaders to developing a consolidated reform model. Since 2008, formal intergovernmental negotiations have addressed membership expansion, regional representation, veto reform and working methods. These became more transparent in 2023, with sessions recorded online, allowing civil society to track proceedings and challenge blocking states.

However, reform efforts faced entrenched interests, geopolitical rivalries and institutional inertia even before Trump started causing chaos. The UN faces a demanding 2026, forced to make funding cuts amid a liquidity crisis while choosing the next secretary-general. In such circumstances, it’s tempting to defer difficult decisions.

But the reform case is clear, as is the choice: act to make the Council fit for purpose or accept continuing paralysis and irrelevance, allowing it to be supplanted by Trump’s Board of Peace.

Samuel King is a researcher with the Horizon Europe-funded research project ENSURED: Shaping Cooperation for a World in Transition at CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation.

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');  

Credit: United Nations

By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Feb 6 2026 (IPS)

The current UN financial crisis, described as the worst in the 80-year-old history of the world body, triggers the question: is the US using its financial clout defaulting in its arrears and its assessed contributions to precipitate the collapse of the UN?

If the crisis continues, the UN headquarters will be forced to shut down by August, ahead of the annual meeting of world leaders in September this year, according to a report in the New York Times last week, quoting unnamed senior UN officials.

But apparently there is still hope for survival —judging by a report coming out of the White House.

Asked about the current state of finances, UN Spokesperson Stephane Dujarric told reporters February 5: “We’ve seen cuts by the United States. We’ve seen cuts by European countries over the last year. And every day, I talk to you about what happens when there’s no money, right?”

“Rations are being reduced, health care not being delivered. So, I mean it’s pretty clear. In terms of the Secretariat, should it come to pass, it will impact our ability to run meetings in this building, to do the political work we do, the peacekeeping work that we do”, he pointed out.

About hopes of a possible resolution, he said “I do also have to say that we saw the reports…earlier this week – of the President of the United States signing a budget bill, which includes funding for the United Nations”.

“We welcome that, and we will stay in contact with the US over the coming days and weeks to monitor the transfers of those monies,” said Dujarric.

Meanwhile, in an interview with IPS last week, Sanam Naraghi Anderlini, Founder/CEO, International Civil Society Action Network (ICAN), said the potential financial collapse of the UN is depressing and yet so indicative of these times, when leadership everywhere is devoid of any sense of responsibility and has no care for the future.

They are the antithesis of the UN’s founding fathers and mothers, who, having experienced the hell of war and destitution first hand, committed themselves to creating a global peace and security architecture with the goal of preventing such hell for us – the future generation – their descendants, she argued.

“We all know that the UN system has never been perfect. It has never lived up to its potential. Often this has been due to the shenanigans of the powerful states, who persist in manipulating the institution for their own interests”.

The UN Security Council has long been the insecurity Council, given how the P5 are all implicated in one or other of the worst wars and genocides of the past 25 years, she said.

“But they are not solely to blame. Within the system too, we have seen both leadership and staff with vested interests, benefitting from the inertia, and unwilling to uphold new practices and priorities that would have brought transformative impact”.

“But dysfunction should not lead to abandonment and the dismantling of the system. The UN cannot be stripped and have its key assets and functions sold to the lowest bidder”.

Already, she said, the dystopian (US-created) Board of Peace is akin to the corporate raiders and vulture funds of the finance world – trying to strip the UN of its key functions but with no accountability or guard rails pertaining to its actions.

As it stands, the U.S. currently owes about $2.196 billion to the U.N.’s regular budget, including $767 million for this year and for prior years, according to U.N. sources.

The U.S. also owes $1.8 billion for the separate budget for the U.N.’s peacekeeping operations overseas, and that also will rise.

As of February 5, only 51 countries had paid their dues in full for 2026—that’s 51 out of 193. A breakdown of the last four payments follows: Australia, $65,309,876, Austria, $20,041,168, Croatia, $2,801,889, and Cyprus $1,120,513.

Dr. Stephen Zunes, Professor of Politics and International Studies at the University of San Francisco, told IPS on the one hand, the United States has been in arrears in its payments to the United Nations quite a bit in recent years, but the UN has managed to get by.

However, the extent of the Trump administration’s cutbacks and the ways they are being targeted at particularly vulnerable programs has resulted in this unprecedented fiscal crisis.

“The hostility of the Trump administration to the United Nations is extreme. Trump has made clear he believes there should be no legal restraints on the conduct of U.S. foreign policy, so it is not surprising he would seek to undermine the world’s primary institution mandated with supporting international law and world order,” declared Dr Zunes.

Addressing the UN’s Administrative and Budgetary Committee last week Chandramouli Ramanathan, Assistant Secretary-General, Controller, Management Strategy, Policy said: “The UN staff is progressively losing confidence in the entire budget process,” referring to cash shortages that have led to severe spending and hiring restrictions. The United Nations needs to find a compromise that allows the Organization to function effectively, he added.

Anderlini, elaborating further, told IPS “now more than ever, the institution must be sustained and enabled to thrive and deliver on the promise of the Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the body of conventions and policies that have been developed through painstaking work to meet the challenges of today’s world.”

When global military spending is topping $2.6 trillion, she said, the UN’s approved annual budget of $3.45 billion seems like pocket change.

“It is absurd for our governments to be borrowing billions to fund weapons, but nickel and diming the UN, governmental agencies and civil society organizations that work to prevent conflict, build peace and ensure human and environmental security.”

“We live in an era where one man’s assets may soon be valued at over one trillion dollars and the world’s billionaire class wealth increased by $2.5 trillion in just one year 2025. They are lauded and applauded even though their wealth is made on the backs, bodies and lands of “We the people of the United Nations” – whether through tax avoidance or investment in high climate impact sectors such as fossil fuels and mining.”

Perhaps they should be taxed and forced to foot the bill for their complicity in the disasters that the UN is forced to clean up.

Peace and development are good for business, she argued. “They are essential for any society to survive and thrive. The UN and the global ecosystem of institutions and people dedicated to caring for the world give us our humanity – far beyond anything that can be limited to monetary value. But in dollar terms they are a great investment with returns that benefit billions of people worldwide, not just a stockpile of deadly weapons or a handful of billionaires”.

Thanks to member states’ abrogation of responsibility to uphold human rights and prevent the scourge of war, violence cost the world $19.97 trillion in 2024, or 11.6% of global GDP. According the Institute of Economics and peace this represents $2,455 per person, includes military spending, internal security, and lost economic activity, declared Anderlini.

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');  

Quatre images examinées par BBC Verify montrent des femmes partiellement vêtues, dont les visages et les corps n’ont pas été masqués.

Cafés enfumés et cigarettes allumées partout : un projet de loi entend durcir les règles sur le tabagisme. Soutenue par les médecins mais contestée par les commerçants, la réforme ravive la polémique dans un pays grand producteur de tabac.

- Articles / Courrier des Balkans, Macédoine du Nord, Economie, Santé, Société

At least 78 bodies have been buried, while it's feared that more than 170 people were killed altogether.

Le mouvement chrétien des Shakers, apparu au XVIIIe siècle, est aujourd'hui reconnu pour son influence majeure dans les domaines du mobilier, du design et de l'architecture. Cependant, son caractère religieux et ses croyances, qui s'écartaient des normes établies, sont moins connus. Que savons-nous donc de ce mouvement ?

Melanie Brown has been fishing salmon in Bristol Bay, Alaska, for more than 30 years. An Indigenous fisherwoman and a coordinating committee member of the World Forum of Fisher Peoples, she speaks about the sea with deep care and lived knowledge. When interviewed for IPS on Marine Protected Areas (MPAs), a global conservation policy introduced […]

UN Secretary-General António Guterres (left), is participating in a meeting with the Heads of State and Government of the European Union in Brussels, Belgium. Credit: UNRIC/Miranda Alexander-Webber Source: UN News

By Simone Galimberti
KATHMANDU, Nepal, Feb 5 2026 (IPS)

Will trade be enough to navigate the current waves of chaos and disorder that are underpinning the ongoing rifts among competing powerful and hegemon nations and the rest?

Amid tectonic shifts in the realm of geopolitics and international relations, amid what the Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney recently defined as a “rupture” in the rules-based multilateral order, trading is seen almost as a panacea.

Yet are we really sure that new and alternative trading partnerships like the ones the European Union has signed with the Mercosur and India are the only ways to cope with an increasingly unpredictable American administration and an over confident and more ambitious China?

Mark Carney in his speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos a few weeks ago offered a blueprint for middle powers like Canada on how they can become less dependent on big hegemon powers.

While he was tacitly describing a tactic to tackle a bossy, unpredictable and more and more authoritarian president south to the border, Mr. Carney provided a foundational framework on how countries like Canada can leverage its natural resources and bet big on the power of trade with alternative markets.

No one doubts that trade can open valuable new options for established economies as well for new emerging ones like India.

The EU has also pivoted to this realm, using new commercial deals as a way to strengthen its own resilience and boost its economy while having no other options than maintaining a good relationship with the USA. But a playbook entirely focused on trade will also hit the wall.

While useful in the short term to escape from or at least try dodging expansionist maneuverings from Washington or Beijing, trade has limitations as well. A comprehensive and long-term response to these new difficult emerging circumstances cannot but be political.

Trade should be seen as a part of a broader toolkit of policies centered on nations committing themselves to invest more on regional projects of cooperation with other nations.

Strengthening political ties among neighboring nations through enhanced economic partnerships could offer the initial impetus to a new form of international regionalism.

Yet nations, while capitalizing on the economic dimensions of their bilateral relationships, should also be powered by a bolder, wider and importantly, more inspiring design.

The need for initiatives that, by intent, go beyond economics while dealing with other nations, would provide the space to imagine new political entities that could get respected and even compete with the existing hegemonic powers.

Imagine how trade and economics was underpinning and turbocharging the project of regional cooperation in post second world war Europe.

With the time, what was a mere economic association, a successful story of cooperation among equals , the European Economic Community turned into something more visionary and braver, a project of regional integration.

As we know from the recent episodes of confrontations generated across the Atlantic that humiliated and defamed Europe, this project is far from being accomplished.

Capitals from around the world, in the Global South and Global North alike, need to understand one thing: only the pursuit of a wider vision with multiple and complementary elements of integration that transcend economy, can offer them the safest route to be able to remain independent.

The building of regional cooperation frameworks, think of Association of South East Asian Nations or the Southern Africa Development Community, can offer a pathway to uphold their members’ internal legitimacy among the citizens while at the same time, cementing their power in the realm of international relations.

Yet the lesson from Europe is clear: economic cooperation and even economic based integration can only go so far.

Only an unequivocal support for more audacious projects can provide states with the leverage needed to deal with few but unrestrained hegemonic powers like China and Russia but also the USA with the second Trump administration.

As difficult and daunting as it is, only regional integration can offer nations a degree of collective power that will earn them some decent amounts of respect. Unfortunately, even regional cooperation is in shambles.

The Southern Common Market or Mercosur despite hitting the headlines with the recent signing of a trade agreement with the EU, (an agreement that the European Parliament, the semi-legislative chamber of the EU, “paralyzed” it with a vote to deferring its legality to the European Court of Justice) is nowhere resembling a politically integrated body of nations.

Who remembers the existence of the Union of South American Nations or UNASUR? Even ASEAN, seen as a model of regional cooperation, is at risk of losing its credibility with its famed “centrality” being put in question.

In Africa, the potential of SADC has evaporated while the most promising and bold attempt of building a political union, the East African Community (EAC) that was supposed to transform itself into a real federation, the East African Federation, also lost considerable steam.

Thanks to Mr. Trump’s ego and dramas stemming from it, the EU is now forced to reconsider its current trajectory of regional integration.

At this current pace and course, the EU will never be able to stand its ground and remain united and cohesive in tackling both overt and veiled threats and blackmails from the hegemonic powers vying to dominate the world.

The EU must be able to project power beyond its economic realm as Mario Draghi, the former Italian Prime Minister and President of the European Central Bank recently shared at the KU Leuven University in Belgium.

“Power requires Europe to move from confederation to federation” because as things stand now, Europe cannot even imagine to be able to survive as it is now.

“ “This is a future in which Europe risks becoming subordinated, divided and de-industrialized at once, and a Europe that cannot defend its interests will not preserve its values for longer.”

Mr Carney, the Canadian Prime Minister, should be praised for mincing no words in Davos. But rupture in the current multilateral order cannot be fixed with band aid solutions.

As much as important trade remains, it is going to be delusional to believe that, alone, it can do the job, in sewing and patching up the rupture that has been created and offer a very potent but still incomplete solution for nations.

We need initiatives that, by design, are fit to build political projects that, while start with nation states at the center, are able to envision, in a not too far horizon, a much more daring political project.

Brussels, as the de facto capital of the EU, could again provide a blueprint for this quantum jump towards a new phase of the European political project that can finally pursue deeper forms of union that, inescapably, would embrace federalism.

After all, the best way to preserve a nation’s standing is to invest in new forms of shared sovereignty.

This should not be a priority only for middle powers like Canada or the members of the EU. Even developing nations must come to terms with this new order and understand that their survival will be only guaranteed through ambitious initiatives of regional cooperation that have only the sky as the limit.

Unfortunately for Mr Carney and Canada, geography is unforgiving.

Who knows, perhaps we could imagine what are now unimaginable ties that would perpetually bind Ottawa with Europe or Mexico and the Caribbean.

Simone Galimberti writes about the SDGs, youth-centered policy-making and a stronger and better United Nations.

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');  

Jeffrey Epstein est mort en prison en attendant son procès pour trafic sexuel – mais qui était-il ?