United Nations Special Rapporteur Reem Alsalem. Credit: UN Photo/Loey Felipe

By Jennifer Xin-Tsu Lin Levine
UNITED NATIONS, Sep 19 2025 (IPS)

A United Nations report calling for the global abolition of surrogacy has sparked intense debate among experts, with critics arguing that blanket bans could harm the very women the policy aims to protect.

Reem Alsalem, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls, issued a report on violence against women and girls with a specific focus on surrogacy as a form of exploitation. The report, officially titled “The different manifestations of violence against women and girls in the context of surrogacy,” was published on July 14, 2025, and is slated for discussion at the upcoming UN General Assembly session in October.

The report calls surrogacy “direct and exploitative use of a woman’s bodily and reproductive functions for the benefit of others, often resulting in long-lasting harm and in exploitative circumstances.”

It further delves into the danger of surrogacy business models, in particular, which embrace the ambiguity of international law to churn a profit, often at the expense of both the surrogate and the prospective family. Alsalem recommends the abolition of surrogacy and asks member states to “work towards adopting an international legally binding instrument prohibiting all forms of surrogacy.”

One of the largest problems with surrogacy today, according to Senior Lecturer at Swinburne University Jutharat Attawet, is a lack of comprehensive education and legal standards around the practice. This results in social alienation and false conceptions, which worsen exploitation of people who participate in surrogacy—they are not provided adequate resources

Attawet, who specializes in surrogacy healthcare and domestic policy, considers surrogacy itself a beneficial tool for nontraditional family building. However, she acknowledges the steps it has to take to ensure autonomy and respect for surrogates.

Attawet’s research, cited in Alsalem’s report, shows that approximately 1 percent of babies born in Australia are from surrogates, so although the number has doubled over the past decade, doctors are not familiar with the process. Furthermore, legislation is primarily top-down rather than region- or area-specific. Since doctors in places like Australia are “intimidated by the language” surrounding surrogacy due to minimal education, they are less willing to openly engage with the procedures. This pushes families to seek surrogates elsewhere, where laws are less stringent and doctors more comfortable with the procedures.

Another incentive for overseas surrogacy, Attawet says, is lack of national support for surrogacy. Since it does not fulfill the criteria of most healthcare insurance plans, prospective parents often seek a more affordable surrogacy birth internationally. This further contributes to the exploitation both she and Alsalem note in their respective research—international surrogacy is much more difficult to regulate between different countries’ laws and often primarily harms the surrogate and the child, who is less likely to know their birth mother from an international surrogacy.

Alsalem criticized the practice of international surrogacy as an exploitative technique to perpetuate wealth inequality between different countries, but many experts argue that the job is one of the few accessible, well-paying jobs for child-bearing people who need to care for their family full-time. Polina Vlasenko, a researcher whose work was also cited in Alsalem’s report, explained to IPS that international surrogacy in Ukraine and the Republic of Georgia “is the type of job you can combine with being a full-time caretaker of your kid… it still benefits women.”

Vlasenko elaborated, saying that most workers in the surrogacy industry, including intermediaries and clinicians, were women who had some sort of pre-existing connection to the process—often being former surrogates. To ban surrogacy entirely, Vlasenko argues, would merely harm women in all facets of the industry rather than resolving wealth gaps. She said, “this inequality is much deeper than services of surrogacy.”

Social worker and professor at Ohio State University Sharvari Karandikar similarly opposes the Special Rapporteur’s recommendation of abolition. In an interview with IPS, Karandikar explained that “in countries like India, it’s really hard to implement policies in a uniform way, and I think that one needs to have proper oversight of medical professionals and how they’re engaging in surrogate arrangements and medical tourism. Blanket bans do not work.”

She emphasized the dangers of surrogacy without regulation, saying it would only do more harm.

Instead, Karandikar advocates for “the safety, the better communication, more education, more informed choice and decision, more safeguards, better treatment options, and long-term health coverage for women who engage in surrogacy” as “a wonderful way to speak about women’s choices, decisions and their health instead of penalizing anyone.”

However, in order for the global conversation surrounding surrogacy to center around female agency, experts like Vlasenko say the perception of surrogates needs to change. She said, “Reproductive work is not always seen as violence or exploitation when it’s done by women for free at home… surrogate mothers are taking the only work that, in their situation, allows them to fulfill certain responsibilities like childcare and income generation. They think that they’re agents in this process, but society sees them as victims.”

Ultimately, the surrogacy debate reflects broader questions about women’s autonomy, economic inequality and reproductive rights. As Vlasenko noted, addressing the “much deeper inequality” that pushes women to surrogacy may prove more effective than focusing solely on limiting the practice itself.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Excerpt:

Activists demand loss and damage reparations outside the hall where the COP29 negotiators were concluding their negotiations. Credit: UN Climate Change/Kiara Worth

By Jennifer Xin-Tsu Lin Levine
UNITED NATIONS, Sep 17 2025 (IPS)

As climate-induced disasters continue to devastate the Global South, nations are steadily mounting pressure at the United Nations for wealthier countries to deliver on long-promised climate reparations through the Loss and Damage Fund. For Indigenous peoples, whose territories are often the most ecologically intact yet most damaged by climate change, these negotiations define survival, sovereignty and recognition as rights-holders in global climate governance.

After the fund’s operationalization at the 29th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP29) in Baku last fall, developing countries say that the pledges so far—approximately USD 741 million—fall drastically short of the trillions needed to recover from climate devastation.

This low number is acutely felt in Indigenous communities, whose local economies rely on thriving ecosystems.

“A lot of rich biodiversity, carbon sinks and the most preserved parts of the world are within indigenous territories,” said Paul Belisario, Global Coordinator for the Secretariat of the International Indigenous Peoples Movement for Self-Determination and Liberation (IPMSDL), in an interview with IPS. “Without recognizing Indigenous people’s right to take care of it, to govern it and to live in it so that their traditional knowledge will flourish, we cannot fully address the climate crisis.”

UN Secretary-General António Guterres echoed this sentiment in Baku, saying, “The creation of the Loss and Damage Fund is a victory for developing countries, for multilateralism and for justice.  But its initial capitalization of USD 700 million doesn’t come close to righting the wrong inflicted on the vulnerable.”

These “wrongs,” Indigenous leaders argue, must include the exclusion of traditional and tribal knowledge in decision-making. In light of pushback to make climate action a legal responsibility rather than a political agreement, many are hopeful that COP30 will yield a more successful negotiation for adequate compensation.

The call for action is led by coalition blocs including the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) and G77, an alliance of developing countries with China as its primary political and financial supporter. Both alliances represent the countries most vulnerable to climate-related natural disasters. G77 was particularly vocal during COP29, where their rejection of the deal was backed by a number of climate and civil society organizations who criticized the negotiating text for giving developed countries too much leeway to shirk their climate finance obligations.

For Indigenous groups, this criticism stems from concerns that funding will not successfully reach their communities due to bureaucracy or geographical and political isolation.

Secretary-General António Guterres meets with André Aranha Corrêa do Lago, President-designate of COP 30, the 2025 UN Climate Change Conference, which will be held in Belém, Brazil. Credit: UN Photo

Janene Yazzie, director of policy and advocacy at the NDN Collective, spoke about the importance of Indigenous involvement in funding distributions, saying, “What we’re advocating for is to ensure that these mechanisms… are accessible to Indigenous Peoples, uphold the rights of Indigenous Peoples, and can be utilized towards solutions and responses that are designed and prioritized by Indigenous Peoples.”

Last year, countries eventually settled on mobilizing USD 300 billion annually by 2035 to developing countries for climate finance—far below the USD 1 trillion experts say is the minimum for effective mitigation and adaptation. The financial commitment is voluntary, meaning that countries can withdraw without consequence and no protections exist to ensure the money is distributed with regard for Indigenous governance systems.

The Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) Indigenous Foundation noted that groups without formal land titles could be excluded entirely, despite their role in stewarding biodiverse landscapes.

However, a recent International Court of Justice (ICJ) report has created new legal pathways. The court placed stringent obligations on states to prevent significant climate harm and tackle climate change, stating that failure to do so triggers legal responsibility. Scientific evidence can link emissions to specific countries, allowing those affected by climate change to seek legal action, which could include getting money back, restoring land, improving infrastructure, or receiving compensation for financial losses.

Indigenous activists at COP29. Credit: UN Climate Change/Kiara Worth

This legal opinion opens new pathways for seeking restitution—not only in money but also in land recovery, infrastructure for adaptation, and guarantees of political participation.

This legal shift comes at a crucial time. In April 2025, thousands of Indigenous Brazilians marched in the capital ahead of COP30 in Belém, demanding land rights and decision-making influence. Meanwhile, the National Organization of the Indigenous Peoples of the Colombian Amazon (OPIAC) also issued a statement about the summit for Deforestation of the Amazon. They outline an action plan to end deforestation, strengthen land rights and phase out oil and gas exploration.

After indigenous groups were denied a co-presidency for COP30, Conference President André Corrêa do Lago pledged to establish a “Circle of Indigenous Leadership” within the conference. Many leaders found the arrangement insufficient—the FSC Indigenous Foundation called instead for “co-governance models where Indigenous Peoples are not just consulted but are leading and shaping climate action.”

Indigenous people make their message clear during COP29. Credit: UN Climate Change/Lara Murillo

Other groups were more explicitly critical. The Indigenous Climate Action co-authored a statement at the end of COP29 saying, “There is nothing to celebrate here today… While we urgently need direct and equitable access to climate finance for adaptation, mitigation and loss and damage across all seven socio-cultural regions… we reject the financial colonization that comes from loans and any other financial mechanisms that perpetuate indebtedness of nations that have contributed the least to climate change yet bear the brunt of its tragedies.”

Belisario frames the funding question as a matter of justice rather than charity.

“This funding is not just corporate social responsibility or compensation,” he told IPS. “This is historical justice.”

However, without Indigenous influence in the distribution of money from the Loss and Damage Fund, it remains unclear how effective this aid will be in combating climate change based on Indigenous knowledge and science. Many activists advocate for more localized approaches to climate action.

Belisario acknowledges the limitations of international negotiations.

“It’s been a running joke that we will negotiate until COP100, and we might not have that long. What we would really like to get out of COP30 is to meet many communities to discuss the common problems and make them realize that this COP is just a part of how we would like to solve our climate crisis,” he said. “We really believe that more radical ways to enact accountability and responsibility will start with movements in people’s own countries, in their own localities.”

As the FSC Indigenous Foundation concluded, “Indigenous Peoples must lead the design, management, and oversight of financial mechanisms that affect their lands, lives, and futures. Climate justice will only be possible when Indigenous Peoples are recognized as rights-holders and partners in decision-making.”

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Excerpt:

IOM teams are assessing damage and delivering life-saving support to those in urgent need after a devastating earthquake in Afghanistan. Credit: IOM

By Jennifer Xin-Tsu Lin Levine
UNITED NATIONS, Sep 5 2025 (IPS)

United Nations aid organizations are rallying after a series of earthquakes and powerful aftershocks wreaked unprecedented havoc across eastern Afghanistan—particularly in the mountainous provinces of Kunar and Nangarhar.

Preliminary reports show that at least 1,400 people were killed and more than 3,100 injured. Widespread destruction of homes and critical infrastructure has displaced thousands more, while rockfalls and landslides have slowed rescue teams’ efforts to reach remote communities.

In response, the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) released 10 million US Dollars within hours of the earthquake to provide shelter, food, water, child protection, and healthcare.

Countries including the United Kingdom and South Korea have pledged money through the United Nations—the UK does not recognize the Taliban government. Working alongside OCHA, the UN Development Programme (UNDP) is working with local partners to link immediate humanitarian assistance with long-term recovery and resilience-building strategies. The United Nations is also preparing an emergency appeal, with an initial USD 5 million from the UN Central Emergency Response Fund (CERF) already released.

UNHCR’s partner, AREWO, assesses the needs of the population affected by the earthquake that hit the region on 31 August. Credit: UNHCR/ARWEO

Despite these rapid mobilizations, questions remain about whether the flow of aid can be sustained. Tom Fletcher, Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator, warned, “This is the latest crisis to expose the cost of shrinking resources on vital humanitarian work. Massive funding cuts have already brought essential health and nutrition services for millions to a halt, grounded aircraft, which are often the only lifeline to remote communities, and forced aid agencies to reduce their footprint.”

He urged donors to “once again” step up for the people of Afghanistan, rallying resources for those in need.

Against this backdrop of urgency and shrinking resources, UNDP officials have sought to outline a vision for recovery that extends beyond immediate survival.

Stephen Rodriguez, UNDP’s resident representative in Afghanistan, addresses a UN press conference via videolink on the impact of the earthquakes on the country and its people. Credit: Jennifer Xin-Tsu Lin Levine/IPS

Stephen Rodriguez, UNDP’s resident representative in Afghanistan, emphasized that the country is facing a “perfect economic storm.”

In a press briefing, he shared data from the UN’s 25 assessment teams showing that 84,000 people have been affected by the earthquake so far.

Rodriguez also detailed the UNDP’s initiative of “community-driven recovery,” which includes cash support for families clearing rubble and rebuilding homes. Pointing to the success of a similar community-oriented approach after the 2023 earthquake in Herat, he called on member states to join the initiative in “building back better,” improving infrastructure and uniting communities.

Both Rodriguez and other UN representatives also addressed the additional challenges created by restrictions on women and girls in Afghanistan and how they affect UN work.

Aid groups are barred from recruiting female aid workers, and as UN Women Afghanistan Special Representative Susan Ferguson said, “women and girls could miss out on lifesaving assistance or information in the days ahead.”

However, Rodriguez denied any organized effort to block women’s access to humanitarian services and medical aid. He described reports of women being prevented from getting emergency medical care as “isolated incidents… rather than a systematic restriction.”

Despite these concerns and the reluctance of some countries to channel funds through Afghanistan’s authorities, UN officials stressed that the humanitarian principles of humanity, impartiality, and independence remain central to their engagement with the Taliban.

Rodriguez recalled difficulties during the 2023 earthquake recovery that have since been resolved and stated that closer coordination has enabled aid to reach mountainous areas with the Taliban’s helicopters.

He called the “growth” in the relationship between the UN and the Taliban “exemplary,” citing their “full understanding that humanity comes first, tending to those most in need, irrespective of ethnicity, of gender, of anything else.”

For now, the focus remains on immediate survival—reaching those trapped beneath debris or isolated from aid, providing food and clean water, and preventing disease outbreaks. But UN officials emphasize that rebuilding shattered homes and livelihoods will require far more than emergency aid—it necessitates sustained support and long-term commitment.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Excerpt:

United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres at a press briefing on Israel’s plans to take over Gaza City. Credit: Jennifer Xin-Tsu Lin Levine/IPS

By Jennifer Xin-Tsu Lin Levine
UNITED NATIONS, Aug 28 2025 (IPS)

Ahead of the Security Council meeting on the situation in the Middle East, United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres spoke to the press on the “unfolding tragedy that is Gaza,” calling Israel’s new plans to take over Gaza City with the military a “deadly escalation” and an “existential threat to the two-state solution.”

He warned that such a move could precipitate an unprecedented humanitarian catastrophe that imperiled any remaining prospects for negotiated peace.

The Secretary-General also reiterated his plea for an immediate ceasefire, emphasizing that capturing Gaza City would result in massive civilian casualties and widespread destruction—including severe impacts on the health sector already teetering on collapse.

At the daily press briefing, spokesperson for the Secretary-General Stéphane Dujarric reported on the displacement in Gaza since Israel’s most recent invasion, confirming the Secretary-General’s statements about refugees. UN experts report that the total number of people who have fled from north Gaza to south Gaza since August 14, when the Israeli invasion was announced, is 20,000.

The Secretary-General went on to address the most recent Israeli air strike on the Nasser Hospital in the southern Strip of Gaza, where at least 20 people were killed and 50 others were injured. Israel’s military defended the strike by asserting that it targeted a camera used by Hamas to surveil troop movements.

Dorothy Shea, United States ambassador to the United Nations, defended Israeli actions and urged condemnation of Hamas’ use of civilian facilities for military purposes. She also noted the Hamas members killed by the airstrike.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu issued a statement calling the strike a “tragic mishap” with no mention of a specific Hamas target. The Secretary-General called for an impartial investigation into these contrasting claims.

Although Netanyahu reaffirmed his respect for journalists on X, formerly known as Twitter, UNESCO reported at least 62 journalists and media workers killed in Palestine while working since October 2023. At least five journalists were killed in the Nasser air strike, according to World Health Organization Director Tedros Adhanom Gebreyesus.

At the Security Council meeting debating whether or not to renew the mandate for the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL), many representatives acknowledged Israel’s current military action and called UNIFIL’s work “vital” in maintaining borders, minimizing conflict and stabilizing tensions.

The representative for Algeria Amar Bendjama was critical of UNIFIL’s failures, but spoke in favor of the renewal. He said, “We must ask, has UNIFIL fulfilled its mandate? Clearly, the answer is no. Lebanese lines remain under Israeli occupation, and we regret that our proposal to include a clear reference to the 1949 general armistice agreement was not retained. Without ending Israel’s occupation of Arab lands, peace and stability in the region will remain elusive.”

UNIFIL was initially created in 1978 to oversee Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon. The mandate was adjusted and has played a significant role in maintaining Lebanese army control on the border between Lebanon and Israel rather than Hezbollah, a paramilitary organization, taking over. Critics, led by the United States, see the mandate as a waste of money that has helped Hezbollah consolidate power.

Dujarrac emphasized the necessity of all participating parties to respect UNIFIL’s mandate for it to successfully fulfill its promises.

The Council ultimately voted to renew UNIFIL’s mandate, with many members stressing that the mission continues to play an important role in preventing further escalation along the Israel-Lebanon border.

Guterres’s warnings on Gaza and the debate over UNIFIL underscored the overlapping crises in the region that face the Security Council.

As displacement in Gaza mounts and humanitarian needs continue to fester, UNIFIL’s renewal has bought time rather than answers for a region caught between humanitarian crisis and unresolved conflict.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Excerpt:

Representatives from Denmark, France, Greece, Guyana, the Republic of Korea, Sierra Leone, Slovenia, the United Kingdom and Panama spoke to media ahead of the UN Security Council debate on Sudan. Credit: Jennifer Xin-Tsu Lin Levine/IPS

By Jennifer Xin-Tsu Lin Levine
UNITED NATIONS, Aug 18 2025 (IPS)

The UN Security Council convened today (August 18) to discuss South Sudan and the “interlinked challenges of climate change and conflict” affecting the region.

Security Council members who have joined the Joint Pledges on Climate, Peace and Security – Denmark, France, Greece, Guyana, the Republic of Korea, Sierra Leone, Slovenia, the United Kingdom and Panama – spoke at a media stakeout ahead of what the representative from Panama called a “compounding crisis” in South Sudan.

The representative for Panama noted the “interlinked challenges of climate change and conflict affecting South Sudan,” referring to climate crises causing flood, drought, minimal resources and famine, further straining peace and fostering inter-communal violence.

He highlighted worsening gender-based violence specifically, saying, “Women and girls are disproportionately and systematically affected by the intersection of climate shocks and insecurity… the breakdown of community support systems heightens the risk of gender-based violence, early marriage, abduction and exploitation, yet women and girls remain key actors in community resilience and peace-building.”

In the Security Council meeting, many other representatives echoed this concern for aid provisions. The Assistant Secretary-General for Africa, Martha Ama Akyaa Pobee, warned Security Council members of the risks caused by lack of funding, saying, “funding cuts are leaving millions without life-saving assistance.”

According to the latest UNICEF South Sudan Humanitarian Situation Report, the Humanitarian Needs and Response Plan is only 28.5 percent funded over halfway through the year. Between April and July, approximately 7.7 million people faced high levels of acute food insecurity, including 83,000 at risk of catastrophic conditions. Approximately 9.3 million people are in dire need of various humanitarian assistance.

The primary conflict between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF), the country’s official military, and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), a paramilitary group, has fueled this humanitarian crisis.

Since clashes erupted in April 2023, the fighting has displaced millions internally and across borders – contributing to famine, widespread violence and food insecurity.

The conflict heightened further in March of 2025 when First Vice President Riek Machar was arrested on charges of stirring up rebellion. His arrest effectively ended the 2018 peace agreement which had ended the civil war and established a government – since then, political legitimacy across the country has grown steadily weaker. Many see the upcoming December elections as a chance to reinstate democracy and fair, representative governance.

Murithi Mutiga, Program Director for Africa at the International Crisis Group, said, “The immediate priority should be to prevent any escalation of violence.”

He encouraged UN member states with close ties to South Sudan like Uganda, Kenya, Ethiopia, South Africa and Tanzania to “call for opposing military actions to create an opportunity for dialogue between the government and opposition groups” and other Security Council members to amplify these discussions without overtaking them.

The representative from Somalia, speaking on behalf of the A3+, a group of African and Caribbean nations, echoed this statement. He said, “an African-led approach, grounded in partnership, inclusivity and respect for South Sudan’s sovereignty, unity and territorial integrity offers the most sustainable path to peace.”

The Pobee further emphasized the necessity of all stakeholders collaborating and acting in good faith to promote democracy in the upcoming elections in December.

She warned, “Failing this, the risk of a relapse into widespread violence will only grow against the background of an already unstable region. It is therefore our shared responsibility to work in close coordination and synergy to help the South Sudanese parties to avoid such an outcome. The people of South Sudan are counting on us.”

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Excerpt:

Ilay David (on screen), brother of a hostage held in Gaza, addresses the Security Council meeting on the situation in the Middle East, including the Palestinian question. City/Location: New York Country: United States of America Credit: UN Photo/Loey Felipe

By Jennifer Xin-Tsu Lin Levine
UNITED NATIONS, Aug 6 2025 (IPS)

At the United Nations media stakeout on Tuesday, Israeli officials kept focus exclusively on the hostages, avoiding questions entirely.

Ahead of the Security Council Meeting on the Question of Palestine, Israeli Minister of Foreign Affairs Gideon Sa’ar and Israeli Ambassador/Permanent Representative of Israel to the United Nations Danny Danon spoke to the press briefly.

Both spoke at length about the remaining hostages, referring to their captivity as “Islamic Jihad in the dungeons of Gaza.” Foreign Minister Sa’ar also criticized United Nations member states for “attacking Israel” by recognizing a Palestinian state during negotiations, calling it a “free gift” to Hamas and an incentive to continue the war.

The Security Council meeting was called by Israel to discuss the plight of hostages still being held in Gaza.

It comes after Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad released images and videos of two emaciated hostages, Evyatar David and Rom Braslavsky, sparking outrage and condemnation.

Assistant Secretary-General Miroslav Jenča called the condition of the hostages “an affront to humanity itself.”

“The scenes of Evaytar apparently being forced to dig his own grave are appalling,” Jenča said.

“These images, and their own accounts of their treatment, have horrified us all.”

David’s brother, Ilay, participated in the meeting via videoconference.

Jenča said, “I pay tribute to your courage and determination, and I share your dearest wish: for your brother, and all hostages held in Gaza, to be immediately and unconditionally released.”

The Security Council meeting, however, came just hours after news that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu plans to propose a full occupation of the Gaza Strip to his security council to completely defeat Hamas. Arguing that peace talks were unsuccessful and ceasefire discussions have stalled, it is unclear when this will occur.

Israel’s assault on Gaza has remained a deeply contentious debate in the United Nations and globally since Hamas’ attacks on October 7th, 2023. Recently, however, more member states have spoken out against Israel’s tactics—including the starvation of people in Gaza through the withholding of international and nongovernmental aid. The Integrated Food Security Phase Classification’s most recent report classified Gaza as being in the highest phase of starvation, with 20 percent of households facing an extreme lack of food, 30 percent of children suffering from acute malnutrition and 2-4 non-trauma deaths for every 10,000 each day.

Approximately 600 retired Israeli security officials wrote an open letter to United States President Donald Trump, asking him to pressure Israel to immediately end the war in Gaza. Officials said, “Hamas no longer poses a strategic threat to Israel.” This criticism of the war from Israeli citizens is evident in polling numbers: Pew Research Center reported that the number of Israelis in favor of Israel governing Gaza had shrunk by almost 10 percentage points from 2024 to 2025.

Israel has also gained significant criticism from other states on the international stage: The United Kingdom recently announced plans to recognize a Palestinian state in September if Israel does not allow more aid into Gaza, continues to annex land in the West Bank, fails to agree to a ceasefire and refuses a long-term peace process. The UK would join almost 75 percent of UN member states, demonstrating political pressure from international organizations.

However, international pressure has not deterred Israel in the past. Israel is not a member of the International Criminal Court and therefore not subject to its rulings, making any legislation like the arrest warrant for Prime Minister Netanyahu politically damaging at best. The International Criminal Court (ICC) has issued arrest warrants citing alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity for Netanyahu, former Israeli defense minister Yoav Gallant, and Hamas commander Mohammed Deif.

Amid ongoing rising international concerns, Israeli officials have consistently refused to answer direct questions from reporters regarding civilian deaths, blocked aid deliveries and settlement expansion.

Sa’ar said, “I came here to put the issue of the hostages front and center on the world stage. They cannot be forgotten.”

Neither he nor Danon took questions from the press—despite journalists calling out specific concerns regarding Israel’s plans to reoccupy Gaza.

During the Security Council debate, Jenča called reports of Netanyahu’s plan to expand military operations “deeply alarming.” Contradicting Sa’ar’s claims that only Hamas’s release of the hostages and disarmament will end the war, Jenča said the only path to ending the war was a permanent ceasefire in conjunction with a release of hostages and unobstructed humanitarian aid.

“There is no military solution to the conflict in Gaza or the broader Israeli-Palestinian conflict. We must establish political and security frameworks that can relieve the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza, start early recovery and reconstruction, address the legitimate security concerns of Israelis and Palestinians, and secure an end to Israel’s unlawful occupation and achieve a sustainable two-State solution.”

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Jean-Noël Barrot, Minister for Europe and Foreign Affairs of France and Co-Chair of the Conference, chairs the general debate of the high-level International Conference for the Peaceful Settlement of the Question of Palestine and the Implementation of the Two-State Solution. At the left is Prince Faisal bin Farhan Al Saud, Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Co-Chair of the Conference. Credit: UN Photo/Loey Felipe

By Jennifer Xin-Tsu Lin Levine
UNITED NATIONS, Jul 30 2025 (IPS)

As the starvation crisis in Gaza deepens into what aid organizations describe as a “worst-case scenario,” a growing coalition of nations is shifting its rhetoric and policy toward supporting Palestinian statehood. At the United Nations General Assembly this week, the humanitarian emergency has reignited global calls for a two-state solution and reignited scrutiny of the Israeli government’s blockade of aid.

The Integrated Food Security Phase Classification published their monthly report on the famine in Gaza on July 29, classifying the region as the highest phase in starvation, with 20 percent of households facing an extreme lack of food, 30 percent of children suffering from acute malnutrition, and two to four non-trauma deaths for every 10,000 each day.

For the past few months, Secretary-General António Guterres has repeatedly condemned the breakdown of humanitarian conditions in Palestine, criticizing the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) for its failure to protect civilians seeking food and asking Israel to allow outside aid into the borders. The representative for Malaysia called the organization a “death trap.”

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu denied these claims, alleging that there was “no starvation” in Gaza and justifying restriction of outside aid due to the possibility of theft from terrorist groups like Hamas.

However, United States President Donald Trump recently broke with Israeli claims, saying that “real starvation” is taking place and promising to set up new food centers.

The United States, as Israel’s staunchest ally and a major co-sponsor of the GHF, has historically refrained from public critique of Israeli policy regarding Gaza. Trump’s remarks mark a significant rhetorical departure from the US’s prior stance and signal what some diplomats interpret as a crack in the long-standing American federal consensus on unconditional support for Israel—especially amid growing domestic and international pressure to respond to the humanitarian toll of the war.

The United Kingdom recently announced its plans to recognize a Palestinian state in September if Israel does not allow more aid into Gaza, continues to annex land in the West Bank, fails to agree to a ceasefire, and refuses a long-term peace process. This announcement was met with extreme pushback from Israel, with Netanyahu accusing UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer of “rewarding Hamas” with his promise to officially recognize Palestine.

Earlier this week, 15 member states issued a joint statement aimed at establishing a two-state solution that officially recognized the State of Palestine and urged others to do the same. The list includes Australia, Andorra, Ireland, Iceland, Spain, Canada, Luxembourg, Malta, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, San Marino, Slovenia, Finland and France, many of which spoke at the General Assembly meeting on Palestine over the past few days. The conference, convened by Saudi Arabia and France, was organized with the goal of recognizing Palestinian statehood as part of a peaceful settlement to end the war in Gaza.

Countries like Malta and Nigeria called for Palestinian self-determination at the General Assembly, and Guatemala, recognizing its status as the first Latin American country to recognize the state of Israel, advocated for a two-state solution that centered the maintenance of humanitarian law and condemned both “abhorrent terrorist attacks” and “the response by the state of Israel.”

The Representative for Oman celebrated new countries’ plans to recognize the Palestinian state and criticized Israel’s “deliberate undermining of chances for peace in the Middle East” through attacks on civilians.

The representative said, “In light of this reality, talking about the two-state solution is no longer enough but should be translated into a viable plan backed by serious political will and practical measures based on the approved international points of reference.” The representative continued, “a recognition [of Palestinian statehood] that represents not only a legal and political position but also a moral expression of siding with justice and human rights. These positions enhance the chances for real peace and constitute positive pressure towards ending the occupation and achieving a just settlement.”

As famine takes hold and the death toll rises, what was once considered a symbolic gesture—recognizing Palestinian statehood—has become a diplomatic lever for change. In a world increasingly polarized by geopolitical interests, the renewed push for self-determination is being framed not only as a political necessity but as a moral imperative. Whether this international momentum will shift conditions on the ground remains uncertain. But at the United Nations this week, the message from much of the world was clear: justice and peace in Gaza demand more than sympathy—they require sovereignty.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Excerpt:

Amir Saeid Iravani, Permanent Representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran to the United Nations, addresses the Security Council meeting on the situation in the Middle East (Syria). Credit: UN Photo/ Evan Schneider

By Jennifer Xin-Tsu Lin Levine
UNITED NATIONS, Jul 30 2025 (IPS)

As sectarian violence rises in Syria, the number of displaced people has climbed exponentially since Syrian forces joined clashes between the Druze and Bedouin groups in the Sweida region.

Spokesperson for the Secretary-General Stéphane Dujarric reported in the daily press briefing this Wednesday, “More than 145,000 people have now been displaced due to hostilities in the Suweida governorate.” This marks a rise of over 50,000 people since Monday, when the spokesperson reported 93,000 displaced.

The conflict originated as a dispute between the Druze and Bedouin, two minorities in southern Syria. In Sweida, a Druze-majority city, armed government forces were deployed to quell the violence and regain control of local government structures primarily led by Druze people.

However, after Israel bombed Damascus, citing harms against Druze civilians, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu outlined a new plan to demilitarize Syrian territory from “south of Damascus and the Golan Heights to the Druze Mountain.”

This decision was widely criticized by global actors, including Secretary-General António Guterres, who called it “essential that these attacks stop and that Israel respect Syria’s sovereignty, unity, territorial integrity, and independence.”

Israel is just one of the many countries involved in Syria’s politics and violence. During the Syrian civil war, a period of general pro-democracy political uprising in the Middle East, countries like Iran and Russia backed the current regime in efforts to prevent further Western influence. Supporting various rebel groups were Turkey, the United States, and Gulf nations like Saudi Arabia and Qatar, each with their own strategic and ideological goals.

As a result, Syria has become a battleground not only for internal factions but also for foreign powers vying for regional influence—often with devastating consequences for the civilian population.

According to the World Health Organization (WHO), over 15.8 million people across Syria were in need of humanitarian assistance as of March 2025, the highest number recorded since the conflict began in 2011. The escalating violence in Sweida further intensifies the crisis and strains an already overstretched aid network.

Medical services have been especially hard-hit. The Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor reported that only 57 percent of hospitals and 37 percent of primary healthcare centers are operating at full capacity, many others struggling due to damaged infrastructure, medicine shortages and the departure of medical personnel.

According to UNDP assessments, there is only one doctor per 2,000 people due to migration over the past decades. Due to the sharp decline in public health spending, these flaws in healthcare infrastructure are particularly glaring in a time when violence has worsened.

However, problems in Syrian infrastructure extend beyond the immediate crisis. UNDP also reported that 30 percent to 50 percent of schools are out of service, damaged, destroyed or repurposed due to war-related destruction or lack of maintenance. Schools that are still operational often do not receive state funding for basic utilities like water, electricity, or heating.

UNICEF has raised alarms about the impact of the conflict on children. The agency estimates that over 2.4 million children are out of school, many of them having been displaced multiple times.

“Years of war and violence have shattered the lives of Syria’s children, with many enduring a lifetime of hardship,” said UNICEF Executive Director Catherine Russell. This has caused stagnation in Syria’s growth—without children to help rebuild infrastructure in education and healthcare, the system remains weakened.

Due to such precarious federal institutions, humanitarian access has similarly lessened. In past years, the UN Security Council has been unable to renew critical cross-border aid mechanisms due to vetoes from permanent members, leaving much of the aid delivery dependent on unstable domestic routes.

In a recent Geneva press briefing, it was confirmed that humanitarian convoys have been delayed or blocked from reaching Sweida and Daraa due to active fighting and lack of security guarantees.

As the power vacuum deepens in Syria, with the central government’s grip weakening and local militias and foreign actors carving out zones of influence, civilians are increasingly left without protection or basic services. The latest violence in Sweida illustrates the high cost of this fragmentation: an already fragile region now overwhelmed by displacement, cut off from aid, and exposed to indiscriminate attacks.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Excerpt:

Permanent Representative of Israel to the United Nations Danny Denon speaks to members of the press at a media stakeout before a Security Council meeting on the Middle-East. Credit: Jennifer Xin-Tsu Lin Levine/IPS

By Jennifer Xin-Tsu Lin Levine
UNITED NATIONS, Jul 21 2025 (IPS)

“Multilateralism is not an option but a necessity as we build back a better world with more equality and resilience and a more sustainable world.”

Secretary-General António Guterres is not the first to laud multilateralism, the practice of collective action between multiple actors on the international stage, and he will not be the last. However, during his tenure as political leader of the United Nations, Guterres has faced significant roadblocks towards such a necessity, particularly in humanitarian aid work. This failure to act comes largely from specific dissenting member states whose power and influence hinder constructive progress.

This resistance is best exemplified in the case of Israel and the latest in a series of disagreements between the member state and the UN regarding the truth of events in the Middle East and Gaza surrounding food, humanitarian aid and the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF), a United States-Israeli aid organization that has been condemned by hundreds of humanitarian-focused non-governmental organizations (NGOs).

Guterres has made repeated calls for multilateral aid and collaborative work in the region, calling at a recent media stakeout for Israel to allow UN humanitarian aid into Gaza, which he said had been blocked “for over three months.”

Israel, however, considers the GHF to be the only viable source of food in the area. Shahar Segal, spokesperson for the GHF, called the organization the only “right and possible way” to deliver aid “without feeding Hamas’ terror machine.”

The US similarly endorsed the organization, also using its Security Council veto power to block a resolution that would require lifting aid restrictions in Gaza. This standstill has not only fostered conflict between the various groups within the UN, but it has weakened the very principle of multilateralism that the UN was founded on in efforts to prevent another world war.

A rejection of multilateralism should not be surprising. As the Representative for the United States said in a recent General Assembly meeting about Responsibility to Protect, a doctrine meant to prevent crimes against humanity, “The United States will always act in accordance with our national interest and will not subordinate our sovereignty to shifting international norms.”

Many American lobbyists question the assertion that international issues are not relevant to the national interest.

Hassan El-Tayyab, Legislative Director for Middle East Policy for the lobbying group Friends Committee on National Legislation and co-chair of the US Ceasefire Coalition, spoke to IPS about the intersectionality between international law and US law.

El-Tayyab often utilizes overlap between US law and international law to make his case to politicians. He offered an example: under International Humanitarian Law, blocking humanitarian aid to civilians is unlawful. Under the Foreign Assistance Act, America must also block offensive weapons sales to countries that block US humanitarian aid.

El-Tayyab said of this strategy, “It gets at that accountability piece, but we’re using a US law framework, which can be a bit more palatable to these members.”

This isolationist mentality is just one of many indications of a global loss of trust in international law and multilateralism. Between America’s imposition of sanctions on the International Criminal Court (ICC) and repeated rejection of UN attempts to provide humanitarian aid, many governments have begun to delegitimize international actors like the UN and international courts of law.

Some, like the US, have taken the route of ignoring court rulings, while other states, like Russia, have openly criticized the ICC as a neocolonial power.

Jamil Dakwar, human rights lawyer and adjunct professor at New York University and Hunter College, acknowledged the flaws in international systems like the ICC or the International Court of Justice (ICJ), saying to IPS, “There is a history of international institutions not taking seriously human rights violations happening in the global North and not holding accountable powerful governments, particularly in western Europe and North America, particularly for the United States after 9/11.

“Those are very valid claims that undermine the legitimacy and the effectiveness of these international institutions, whether they are the ICC or the ICJ or the international human rights system as a whole, especially within the United Nations system.”

Dakwar references inaction from international courts, particularly when wealthy, influential western countries were involved, criticizing the institutions for a double standard.

However, Dakwar also criticized states that were ignoring international law, saying, “That said, that is not an excuse for other governments to flout international law just because other countries are not being held accountable or are undermining that very system.

“I think that what’s important to recognize is that these institutions do have a role, and they were tasked, and they were given the authority to uphold international law in the most difficult situations where diplomacy fails…there’s blame to be put on the major powers that are taking things into their own hands and not following international law.”
According to El-Tayyab, such disregard for the UN comes from what he calls “an à la carte approach to the charter.”

When countries see international mandates as suggestions or tools for their convenience rather than obligations, they erode the systems established to prevent world conflict and crisis.

Dakwar referred to this practice as larger, wealthier countries “bullying” those in the global South—forcing other countries out of fear to concede.

Dakwar told IPS, “There is a sense that it’s more expedient to remain silent and not to be proactive and outspoken on these serious violations of international law because of the consequences.”

However, that notion is untrue: Dakwar explained, “There’s not a single issue or situation where it will not have an impact on everyone, because it has an impact on migration, on climate and on the being of humanity as a whole.”

Both El-Tayyab and Dakwar are staunch supporters of multilateralism but, like many other actors invested in international relations and humanitarian aid, believe it must be put into practice in a much more unbiased, overarching way that centers all people’s humanity rather than being used as a tool for political gain.

For multilateralism to successfully accomplish its goals of unity and collective action towards peace, all countries have an obligation to put aside national motivations for the sake of global welfare that affects all people, including themselves.

Additionally, the UN must recenter marginalized countries, like those in the global South who have been undervalued and discounted in international discussions, to promote a stronger buy-in for all actors.

As El-Tayyab said, “All politics is local, and these member states make up the UN. The UN is us, in a way.” In adhering to this principle, all voices must be considered.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Excerpt:

The General Assembly’s Plenary meeting on Nelson Mandela International Day. Credit: Jennifer Xin-Tsu Lin Levine/IPS

By Jennifer Xin-Tsu Lin Levine
UNITED NATIONS, Jul 18 2025 (IPS)

The United Nations celebrated Nelson Mandela International Day in honor of the activist and politician’s lifelong commitment to peace and democracy.

At the 16th celebration of Nelson Mandela International Day, delegates, representatives and visitors alike reflected on the impact of South Africa’s first black president and leader in a fully representative democratic election.

The activist and politician, who spent 27 years in prison, was a staunch freedom fighter—arguing that freedom was not only an individual mission but also a collective responsibility and communal effort.

These principles were enshrined in the Nelson Mandela Rules, officially called the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, a document protecting humane treatment of individuals without liberty. The document emphasizes respect for human dignity, prohibits torture and promotes fair and just conditions.

Although the Nelson Mandela Rules are “soft law” and not legally binding, the General Assembly has adopted them as universally agreed minimum standards. Many countries have incorporated the rules into domestic law, but many others have violated conditions of healthcare, solitary confinement and ethical working rights. Delegates and various speakers agreed that there was still much work to be done.

Nelson Mandela International Day, established in 2009 by the United Nations General Assembly and officially celebrated in 2010 on July 18th (President Mandela’s birthday), is a holiday encouraging all citizens around the world to engage positively in their communities.

Dr. Naledi Pandor, chair of the Nelson Mandela Foundation, addresses the UN General Assembly Plenary on Nelson Mandela International Day. Credit: Jennifer Xin-Tsu Lin Levin/IPS

From annual volunteer events to the annual Mandela Prize, awarded to two laureates each year who have profoundly impacted their communities by serving humanity, speakers, including the award recipients, the Secretary-General and the chair of the Nelson Mandela Foundation, all reflected on Mandela’s legacy on their own lives and on the UN.

In Secretary-General António Guterres’ remarks to the General Assembly at their plenary meeting, he said, “Power is not a personal possession to be harbored. Power is about lifting others up; it’s about what we can achieve with one another and for one another. Power is about people.” He echoed Mandela’s belief in collective grassroots action to deliver power to the powerless, encouraging member states to bring these principles into practice.

Dr. Naledi Pandor, chair of the Nelson Mandela Foundation, similarly called for action against injustice and inequality. She recalled how the United Nations aided South Africa in ending apartheid as it “stood against apartheid domination, not through arms but through bringing its undeniable moral weight into combat against injustice. That boldness, that courage is needed more and more today.”

Nelson Mandela, then Deputy President of the African National Congress of South Africa, raises his fist in the air while addressing the Special Committee Against Apartheid in the General Assembly Hall, June 22, 1990. Credit: UN Photo/Pernaca Sudhakaran

Pandor went on to recall Mandela’s political views beyond South Africa—his demand for global equity extended to all, and reflecting on how he might feel about the current state of the world, she quoted his 1990 speech to the UN Special Committee Against Apartheid.

Mandela said, “We also take this opportunity to extend warm greetings to all others who fight for their liberation and their human rights, including the peoples of Palestine and Western Sahara. We commend their struggles to you, convinced that we are all moved by the fact that freedom is indivisible, convinced that the denial of the rights of one diminishes the freedom of others.”

Mandela was a strong supporter of Palestine, often comparing its struggle with South Africa’s. South Africa, even after his death, maintained close ties to Palestine and brought the case of genocide against Israel to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in 2024.

The 2025 Nelson Mandela laureates, Brenda Reynolds of Saulteaux First Nation and Canada and Kennedy Odede of Kenya, both spoke about how Mandela inspired their respective work. Reynolds, a social worker by trade, led the establishment of a national, culturally grounded mental health initiative for survivors of Indian residential schools.

Reynolds described her work with survivors as an example of Mandela’s notion of moving forward from resentment towards progress—as people found peace with their experiences, they were able to recover and lift up their communities from oppression. She described this as a process of peacebuilding within people, saying, “peace begins with individuals, and from there, you can find peace within your family and within your communities.”

Odede, who founded Kenya’s largest grassroots movement, Shining Hope For Communities (SHOFCO), to empower struggling urban communities, shared how Mandela’s words and experience with struggle inspired him to build within his own life. He found creative ways to organize communities around simple things like soccer, providing hope to people in dire situations.

The representative for The Gambia, who spoke on behalf of the African states, called upon the UN to adhere to Mandela’s principles, particularly on poverty as a man-made horror that can and must be removed by actions of human beings. The representative warned of extreme poverty on the rise, centering the “developing countries and middle-income countries” suffering the most “with unemployment rates beyond records.”

He said, “It is time for solidarity, partnerships and genuine actions where they are most needed,” asserting that poverty and underdevelopment were huge perpetuators of racism, therefore continuing a vicious cycle that oppressed people.

The representative argued, “rising inequity and progressive discrimination are not inevitable; they are a result of decades of policies and dynamics emanating from colonialism, appetite, and discrimination.” Criticizing these practices as misaligned with the UN charter, he pushed the UN to renew their commitment to progressing social development by redistributing wealth.

As the world commemorates Nelson Mandela’s enduring legacy, the message resonating from this year’s observance is clear: his vision of freedom—rooted in dignity, justice and collective responsibility—demands more than remembrance; it requires action. From prison reform to poverty alleviation to indigenous healing to grassroots empowerment, Mandela’s ideals continue to challenge the global community to uphold humanity over power and compassion over indifference. In honoring his life, the UN and its member states are reminded that freedom is not static—it is a continual struggle, a shared pursuit and a moral obligation.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Excerpt:

“Plastic Ocean” by Alejandro Duràn, one of the artworks previously on display in the UN lobby. Credit: Jennifer Levine/IPS

By Jennifer Xin-Tsu Lin Levine
UNITED NATIONS, Jul 14 2025 (IPS)

The United Nations’ HOMO SARGASSUM exhibition served as a public immersion into the marine world and called upon viewers to take action in the face of the climate crisis, specifically regarding invasive species and water pollution.

For the past month, an art exhibition entitled HOMO SARGASSUM took up residence in the New York headquarters lobby in connection to World Ocean Month and the 2025 UN Ocean Conference. Organized by the Tout-Monde Art Foundation. In its final week on display, visitors walked through the various projected films, sculptures and photographs. The exhibit closed on July 11.

The work is described as an immersive multisensorial art and science exhibition intended to bring together various experts in science, scholarship and creativity from the Caribbean to share their perspectives on the prevalent environmental and social issue. The exhibit is primarily an introspective study of sargassum, a type of seaweed or algae commonly found on the coast of the Americas and in the Caribbean.

Sargassum, which has proliferated significantly in recent years due to pollution and chemical fertilizer, releases toxic gases that harm nearby residents in water and on land. Animals struggle to survive, and humans experience respiratory failures and burns. This algae has inspired fear since Christopher Columbus recorded his crew’s sighting of the plant. Sargassum has also become a symbol recently for climate change in the Caribbean as well as the coexisting nature of marine and human life.

Co-curator and executive and artistic director of the Tout-Monde Art Foundation Vanessa Selk described the exhibit as a journey rather than a singular experience. She said, “Much like sargassum migrating through the Atlantic Ocean, we encounter natural and human-made challenges such as pandemics, pollutants and hurricanes. This narrative of the global ecological crisis, reflected in silent floating algae, warns us to change our existing paradigms and consider ourselves as one with our environment.”

Billy Gerard Frank, one of the featured artists in HOMO SARGASSUM, echoes this sentiment.

Frank created a mixed-media piece entitled “Poetics of Relation and Entanglement” with a painting featuring Columbus’ archival notes and sargassum pigment, as well as a film he shot on the island of Carriacou. The film centered on a large metal tank surrounded by sargassum, which had washed on shore and rusted onto the massive object. He specifically shot the film around the sargassum and the tank, an eyesore for the locals who used the beach and a barrier to boats trying to leave. Growing up in Grenada, Frank recalls sargassum as a mild inconvenience but explained how it has become more prevalent due to climate change.

However, only in recent years has conversation around sargassum shifted towards the impact of climate change and geographical inequities, like, as Frank noted, how smaller islands that produce significantly lower levels of pollution are the worst affected by climate change through natural disasters.

He referenced the recent Hurricane Beryl, a Category 5 storm that “completely devastated” islands like Carriacou. His inclusion of Columbus’ notes brings a decolonial perspective: the threats Caribbean islands face from mounting climate change are exacerbated by their history of occupation, mostly from European colonial powers. In a global organization like the UN where historical, geographical and environmental context is key to making any decision, such an interdisciplinary perspective is key.

From countless gifts from member states to various donations, the UN has been an artistic hub since its inception. As both a tourist attraction and space of work for international diplomats, the UN is a particularly ripe space for more radical, political art—notably Guernica, a tapestry based on a Picasso painting portraying the Spanish Civil War—due to its broad audience.

Speaking to IPS, Frank shared how influential art has been in political, social and intellectual movements, saying, “historically…creators, writers, and artists have been able to forge ahead and create new spaces…it gives us some hope that our work and the calling are even more important.”

Frank also told IPS how important it was for him to have the work featured at the UN.

“Because the UN is also a site of consternation right now, specifically with everything that’s happening globally. And in fact, that’s the space where this type of work should be, where there should be more conversation, and a space in which it could create a critical dialogue amongst people who work there, but also the public facing that too.”

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

About 9.2 million people across the world living with HIV were not receiving treatment in 2024, according to the UNAIDS report. At the launch of the report were Rev. Mbulelo Dyasi, Executive Director of SANARELA. Winnie Byanyima, UNAIDS Executive Director, Aaron Motsoaledi, Minister of Health of South Africa. Juwan Betty Wani, Programme Coordinator, Adolescents Girls and young women Network South Sudan. Helen Rees, Executive Director, Wits RHI. Credit: UNAIDS

By Jennifer Xin-Tsu Lin Levine
UNITED NATIONS, Jul 10 2025 (IPS)

UNAIDS called the funding crisis a ticking time bomb, saying the impact of the US cuts to the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) could result in 4 million unnecessary AIDS-related deaths by 2029.

A historic withdrawal of global HIV/AIDS funding threatens to derail decades of hard-won progress in the fight against AIDS, according to UNAIDS’ annual report, entitled Aids, Crisis and the Power to Transform. This funding shortage – caused by sudden and massive cuts from international donors – is already dismantling frontline services, disrupting lifesaving treatments for millions and endangering countless lives in the world’s most vulnerable communities.

“This is not just a funding gap—it’s a ticking time bomb,” said UNAIDS Executive Director Winnie Byanyima.

Despite major strides in 2024, including a decrease in new HIV infections by 40 percent and a decrease in AIDS-related deaths by 56% since 2010, the onset of restricted international assistance, which makes up 80 percent of prevention in low- and middle-income countries, could have disastrous effects. The report, mostly researched at the end of 2024, concluded that the end of AIDS as a public health threat by 2030 was in sight.

However, in early 2025 the United States government announced “shifting foreign assistance strategies,” causing them to withdraw aid from organizations like the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), which had earlier promised 4.3 billion USD in 2025. PEPFAR is one of the primary HIV testing and treatment services in countries most affected. Such a drastic decision could have ripple effects, including pushing other major donor countries to revoke their aid. The report projected that if international funding permanently disappears, they expect an additional 6 million HIV infections and 4 million AIDS-related deaths by 2029.

At a Press Briefing, Assistant Secretary-General for UNAIDS Angeli Achrekar noted the importance of PEPFAR since its inception in 2003, calling it one of the most successful public health endeavors. She expressed hope that as the US lessens its support, other organizations and countries are able to take up the global promise of ending AIDS without eroding the gains already made.

Achrekar noted “acute shifts” in a weakening of commitment from countries less directly affected by HIV/AIDS since the US has pulled funding.

UNAIDS also reports a rising number of countries criminalizing populations most at risk of HIV – raising stigma and worsening gender-based violence and non-consensual sex, two of the highest HIV risk-enhancing behaviors. The report showed the primary groups who lacked care were child HIV infections and young women, which is likely related to government campaigns  “attacking HIV-related human rights, including for public health, with girls, women and people from key populations.”

These punitive laws include criminalization or prosecution based on general criminal laws of HIV exposure, criminalization of sex work, transgender people and same-sex sexual activity and possession of small amounts of drugs. These laws have been on the rise for the past few years, and in conjunction with limited funding, the results for HIV/AIDS-positive patients could be fatal.

Recently, scientific breakthroughs have been made regarding long-acting medicine to prevent HIV infection. Health workers have seen tremendous success, both with new technologies like annual injections and the potential for more growth in the form of monthly preventative tablets and in old prevention techniques like condom procurement and distribution and access to clean, safe needles for drug users. However, due to various global conflicts and wars, supply chains have been disrupted, often harming countries not in the thick of the altercation but reliant on products like PrEP, an HIV prevention medication.

Although many countries most afflicted with the AIDS crisis have stepped up, promising more national funding for the issue, and many community networks have doubled down on their efforts, the disruption of supply chains and the lack of international frontline health workers cannot be solved overnight. To entirely restructure how healthcare is provided takes time – something those with HIV do not always have.

Areas like sub-Saharan Africa, which in 2024 housed half of the 9.2 million people not receiving HIV treatment, have been particularly affected by the recent changes. The majority of child infections still occur there, and combinations of “debt distress, slow economic growth and underperforming tax systems” provide countries in sub-Saharan Africa with limited fiscal room to increase domestic funding for HIV.

Despite the loss of funding, significant progress has been made to protect essential HIV treatment gains. South Africa currently funds 77% of its AIDS response, and its 2025 budget review includes a 3.3% annual increase for HIV and tuberculosis programs over the next three years. As of December 2024, seven countries in sub-Saharan Africa have achieved the 95-95-95 targets established by UNAIDS: 95% of people living with HIV know their status, 95% of those are on treatment, and 95% of those on treatment are virally suppressed. UNAIDS emphasized the importance of this being scaled up to a global level.

Achrekar observed, referring to countries whose domestic funds towards AIDS have increased, that “prevention is the last thing that is prioritized, but we will never be able to turn off the tap of the new infections without focusing on prevention as well.”

She reiterated the importance of countries most affected by the HIV/AIDS crisis establishing self-sustaining health practices to ensure longevity in both prevention and treatment.

Achrekar praised the global South for their work in taking ownership of treatment while still calling upon the rest of the world to join.

She said, “The HIV response was forged in crisis, and it was built to be resilient. We need, and are calling for, global solidarity once again, to rebuild a nationally owned and led, sustainable and inclusive multi-sectoral HIV response.”

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Philemon Yang (centre), President of the seventy-ninth session of the United Nations General Assembly, chairs the 80th plenary meeting of the General Assembly on the theme responsibility to protect and the prevention of genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. At left is Secretary-General António Guterres, who delivered a report on "Responsibility to protect: 20 years of commitment to principled and collective action" to the Assembly. Credit: UN Photo/Loey Felipe

By Jennifer Xin-Tsu Lin Levine
UNITED NATIONS, Jul 3 2025 (IPS)

The UN has been criticized by some member states for overstepping the mandate of its Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine during a debate in the General Assembly.

United Nations member states held another General Assembly meeting to discuss the 20-year-old doctrine Responsibility to Protect, where many powerful members spoke out against the political contract.

On Tuesday, July 1, the General Assembly invited United Nations member states to resume discussion about Responsibility to Protect (R2P), the doctrine meant to prevent crimes against humanity. Previously, many member states spoke in support of the doctrine, calling for countries to reaffirm their commitment to protecting civilians and to respect the rulings of international law. Although some states speaking shared this sentiment, other powerful representatives advocated emphatically against R2P, criticizing its inefficacy and calling for its removal.

The Representative from the Russian Federation was a particularly strong critic of R2P, calling it “an instrument used repeatedly by the collective West to interfere in the internal affairs of states to replace humanitarian intervention.” Russia particularly noted the first use of R2P in 2011 during Libya’s civil war, condemning the West’s “warped interpretation” of the provisions in R2P.

This criticism is not uncommon: experts have argued for years that the UN overstepped its mandate outlined in R2P by authorizing military intervention.

In line with R2P, the Security Council 1973 authorized the protection of civilians “by necessary measures.” This broad statement gave NATO powers the freedom to enter the conflict territory with troops. Russia was among five abstentions for Resolution 1973, alongside China, a fellow permanent member, Brazil, Germany and India.

Calling the UN and NATO’s actions in Libya an “act of aggression against a sovereign state,” Russia went on to criticize the International Criminal Court (ICC), what it called “an instrument of the collective West.” Accusing the ICC of destroying a “once-prosperous Arab country,” Russia condemned R2P, humanitarian intervention and the ICC as neocolonial tools to maintain Western dominance globally.

The Representative from the United States of America also criticized R2P, but for very different reasons. Calling it a dangerous concept that “opens the door to selective, politicized action under the guise of humanitarian concern,” the US called the doctrine “destabilizing” to “the very international order it claims to uphold.”

Noting that intervention in conflict often is not in a state’s individual interest, the US claimed the vague concepts of collective responsibility in the document were not effective in addressing all atrocities. Using examples of China’s treatment of the Uyghur population, the military regime in Myanmar and the current conflict in Sudan, the US said, “Some Member States must do much more to address the risks that lead to atrocities and to put an end to senseless conflicts.”

This comes at a time when UN human rights experts have criticized “the United States’ escalating attacks on the international architecture of human rights, the rule of law, multilateralism, the principles of sovereign equality and self-determination, and vital international agreements on peace and security, climate change, global justice, and international cooperation.” Many states fear America’s growing isolationist practices, while others like Russia worry that they, like other Western states, are too involved in the sovereignty of other states.

The representative reiterated, “The United States will always act in accordance with our national interest and will not subordinate our sovereignty to shifting international norms, and we encourage others to do the same.” Naming R2P as a political commitment rather than a legally binding one, he suggested that each individual state protect its own populations from genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity as the doctrine lays out.

Such influential member states, both of which are permanent members of the Security Council, undoubtedly have significant sway in the UN. However, several smaller states maintained support for R2P while outlining ways it could be improved.

The Representative from Ghana called R2P’s issue a “crisis of confidence” in implementation, arguing that its failures must be addressed by a reiteration of political commitment and a refusal to look away when the truth is inconvenient. Ghana emphasized a responsibility to remember the doctrine’s failures, including Libya, while moving forward to improve it as a more effective tool. He said, “when we preserve the truth of past atrocities, honor the memory of victims and confront denial, we are strengthening the foundations on which R2P stands.”

The future of R2P is unclear. Whether states will join the calls of larger states like the US and Russia, calling for the doctrine’s end, or whether they will, as Ghana said, reaffirm shared humanity with the principle, the decision will undoubtedly affect the normative culture of multilateral action in the face of humanitarian crises.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

UN Secretary-General António Guterres addresses the debate at the UN on the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine. The debate marked the 20th anniversary of its adoption at the 2005 World Summit. Credit: Jennifer Xin-Tsu Lin Levine

By Jennifer Xin-Tsu Lin Levine
UNITED NATIONS, Jun 26 2025 (IPS)

United Nations member states this week reiterated their commitment to the prevention of genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity—at a time when world powers are failing to meet these obligations.

On the 20th anniversary of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine, the UN held a Plenary Meeting to discuss the landmark commitment to the doctrine. Although many speakers praised the policy’s work on prevention capacity, members largely criticized the inconsistency and hypocrisy of states that have failed to adhere to the doctrine’s guidelines.

The representative from Slovenia criticized the Security Council permanent members’ veto power on issues addressing genocide and human rights violations, arguing that the veto slows the quick response needed for such issues when people’s dignity is threatened. She further suggested that there should be no veto power from Permanent Members in cases where R2P is involved.

This statement, although not explicitly, calls out the United States and the Russian Federation, the two Permanent Member states who have exercised their veto power in the past year—for the US, in regard to the Middle East and Palestine specifically, and for Russia, in regard to Sudan and South Sudan.

This critique is not new; the Accountability, Coherence and Transparency (ACT) coalition of small and medium-sized states proposed a “Code of Conduct regarding Security Council action against genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes,” which, according to the R2P website, “calls upon all members of the Security Council (both permanent and elected) to not vote against any credible draft resolution intended to prevent or halt mass atrocities.” As of 2022, 121 member states and two observers have signed.

By reframing the protection of civilians from mass atrocities as a governmental duty and responsibility, R2P was created after inadequate responses to genocide in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia.

Although the initiative has been successful for mediating in regions like The Gambia and Kenya, as Secretary-General António Guterres noted in his report entitled “Responsibility to Protect: 20 years of commitment to principled and collective action,” R2P has failed to push the UN towards action in places like Syria or Myanmar, where veto deadlock prevented aid or policy change.

Another hindrance to R2P’s efficacy, as both Slovenia and a representative from Australia noted, is what the latter referred to as general impunity and lack of accountability for many states.

Criticizing sanctions and dismissal of international court rulings such as the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the International Court of Justice (ICJ), this statement may have been in response to US sanctions towards four ICC judges after the court opened investigations concerning both the US and Israel’s military actions.

Neither nation recognizes the ICC’s authority, making them not subject to ICC rulings.

In a statement from the White House, President Donald Trump said, “The United States will impose tangible and significant consequences on those responsible for the ICC’s transgressions, some of which may include the blocking of property and assets, as well as the suspension of entry into the United States of ICC officials, employees, and agents, as well as their immediate family members, as their entry into our Nation would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.”

Multiple representatives reaffirmed their respect for impartial judicial rulings and international courts and tribunals in the General Assembly meeting despite verbal and economic pushback from some of the most influential member states.

The R2P’s most glaring inconsistency between principle and implementation lies in the conflict in Gaza. The representative from Indonesia highlighted the genocide against Palestine as “the R2P’s most urgent test,” urging member states to revive the sanctity of international law and restore trust in the UN’s ability to enforce their policy. As trust in the UN has waned, many feel a growing pressure to re-legitimize the institution through their actions, particularly regarding crimes against humanity.

As one representative noted, “History will judge us all.”

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau