CIVICUS discusses the spread of AI-powered surveillance in Africa with Wairagala Wakabi, executive director of the Collaboration on International ICT Policy for East and Southern Africa (CIPESA) and co-editor of Smart City Surveillance in Africa: Mapping Chinese AI Surveillance Across 11 Countries, the latest report by the African Digital Rights Network (ADRN) and the Institute of Development Studies (IDS).

Wairagala Wakabi

How widespread is AI-powered surveillance in Africa?

Under the guise of reducing crime and fighting terrorism, at least 11 governments have invested over US$2 billion in AI-powered ‘smart city’ surveillance infrastructure: Algeria, Egypt, Kenya, Mauritius, Mozambique, Nigeria, Rwanda, Senegal, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe.

Governments are installing thousands of CCTV cameras linked to central command centres, paired with tools such as automatic number-plate recognition, biometric ID systems and facial recognition to track people and vehicles. The largest known investments are in Nigeria (over US$470 million), Mauritius (US$456 million) and Kenya (US$219 million), though the real total is likely much higher, since surveillance spending is often secret and the report covers only 11 of Africa’s 55 countries.

Despite being presented as tools for crime prevention, counter-terrorism, modernisation and urban management, these are not targeted security measures. They represent a broader shift toward continuous, population-level monitoring of public spaces, rolled out over the past five to ten years almost always without clear legal limits or public debate.

Are these systems achieving their stated purpose?

No, there is no compelling evidence that they have in any of the countries studied. Instead, the data points to a pattern of use that raises serious human rights concerns.

In Uganda and Zimbabwe, AI-powered surveillance including facial recognition is being used to suppress dissent rather than ensure public safety. Activists, critics of the government, opposition leaders and protesters are identified and monitored through this system, even after protests have ended. In Mozambique, smart CCTV systems have reportedly been installed in areas of strong political opposition, suggesting targeted rather than neutral surveillance.

In Senegal and Zambia, countries with relatively low terrorism threats, governments have still invested heavily, which calls into question the stated security rationale.

Across the countries studied, the scale of surveillance far exceeds any actual or perceived security threat, and the infrastructure is consistently being used to monitor dissent and consolidate state control rather than address genuine public safety needs.

Who’s supplying this technology?

While firms from Israel, South Korea and the USA supply surveillance technologies, Chinese companies are the primary suppliers and financiers. They typically offer end-to-end ‘smart city’ packages that include cameras, software platforms, data analytics systems, training and ongoing technical support. Many projects are backed by loans from Chinese state-linked banks, which makes them financially accessible in the short term but creates long-term dependencies on external vendors for maintenance, system management and upgrades.

This model undermines transparency. Procurement processes are opaque and civil society, the public and oversight institutions including parliaments rarely have information about how these systems operate, how data is stored or who has access to it. That lack of accountability is what makes abuse not just possible, but hard to detect or challenge.

What impact is this having on civic space?

This large-scale surveillance of public spaces is not legal, necessary or proportionate to the legitimate aim of providing security. Recording, analysing and retaining facial images of people in public without their consent interferes with their right to privacy and, over time, their willingness to move, assemble and speak freely.

The most immediate consequence is a chilling effect, particularly where civic space is already restricted. Knowing they can be identified and tracked, activists and journalists are less willing to attend protests for fear of later arrest or reprisals, and end up self-censoring. Civil society organisations also report heightened anxiety about the risks for their members and partners.

What should governments and civil society do?

None of the 11 countries studied have a legal framework capable of balancing the state’s security needs with its commitments to protect fundamental human rights. That must change. Governments must adopt clear regulations on surveillance, including restrictions on facial recognition and other AI tools, require independent human rights impact assessments before introducing new systems, make procurement and deployment processes transparent and establish strong oversight mechanisms, including judicial and parliamentary scrutiny, to prevent abuse.

Civil society should continue documenting abuses, raising public awareness and advocating for accountability, while also supporting affected people and communities through digital security support and legal assistance.

Technology-exporting states and donors must enforce stricter controls and safeguards on the export and financing of these tools, support rights-based approaches to digital governance and help fund independent monitoring and advocacy across Africa.

Without urgent action, these systems will continue to expand, and the rights of people across Africa will continue to shrink.

CIVICUS interviews a wide range of civil society activists, experts and leaders to gather diverse perspectives on civil society action and current issues for publication on its CIVICUS Lens platform. The views expressed in interviews are the interviewees’ and do not necessarily reflect those of CIVICUS. Publication does not imply endorsement of interviewees or the organisations they represent.

GET IN TOUCH
CIPESA/Website
CIPESA/Facebook
CIPESA/LinkedIn
CIPESA/Twitter
ADRN/Website
ADRN/Facebook
ADRN/Twitter
IDS/Website
IDS/BlueSky
IDS/Facebook
IDS/Instagram
IDS/LinkedIn

SEE ALSO
Technology: innovation without accountability CIVICUS | State of Civil Society Report 2026
AI governance: the struggle for human rights CIVICUS Lens 11.Sep.2025
Facial recognition: the latest weapon against civil society CIVICUS Lens 23.May.2025

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

 
CIVICUS discusses China’s tech-enabled repression with Fergus Ryan, a Senior Analyst at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI), where he specialises in how the Chinese Communist Party shapes global information environments through censorship, propaganda and platform governance. His research includes a major study on China’s AI ecosystem and its human rights impacts, as well as investigations into China’s use of foreign influencers.

Fergus Ryan

What AI systems is China developing?

Based on our research, China is rapidly developing a multi-layered AI ecosystem designed to expand state control.

Tech giants are building multimodal large language models (LLMs) such as Alibaba’s Qwen and Baidu’s Ernie Bot, which censor and reshape descriptions of politically sensitive images. Hardware companies including Dahua, Hikvision and SenseTime supply the camera networks that feed into these systems.

The state is building what amounts to an AI-driven criminal justice pipeline. This includes City Brain operations centres such as Shanghai’s Pudong district, which process massive surveillance data, as well as the 206 System, developed by iFlyTek, which analyses evidence and recommends criminal sentences. Inside prisons, AI monitors inmates’ facial expressions and tracks their emotions.

AI-enabled satellite surveillance, such as the Xinjiang Jiaotong-01, enables autonomous real-time tracking over politically sensitive regions. Additionally, AI-enabled fishing platforms such as Sea Eagle expand economic extraction in the exclusive economic zones of countries including Mauritania and Vanuatu, displacing artisanal fishing communities.

How does China use AI for censorship and policing?

China relies on a hybrid model of censorship that fuses the speed of AI with human political judgement. The government requires companies to self-censor, creating a commercial market for AI moderation tools. Tech giants such as Baidu and Tencent have industrialised this process: systems automatically scan images, text and videos to detect content deemed to be risky in real time, while human reviewers handle nuanced or coded speech.

In policing, City Brains ingest data from millions of cameras, drones and Internet of Things sensors and use AI to identify suspects, track vehicles and predict unrest before it happens. In Xinjiang, the Integrated Joint Operations Platform aggregates data from cameras, phone scanners and informants to generate risk scores for individuals, enabling pre-emptive detention based on behavioural patterns rather than specific crimes.

On platforms such as Douyin, the state does not just delete content; it algorithmically suppresses dissent while amplifying ‘positive energy’. AI links surveillance data directly to narrative control and police action.

What are the human rights impacts?

These AI systems erode the rights to freedom of expression, privacy and a fair trial.

Historically, online censorship meant deleting a post. Today, generative AI engages in ‘informational gaslighting’. When ASPI researchers showed an Alibaba LLM a photograph of a protest against human rights violations in Xinjiang, the AI described it as ‘individuals in a public setting holding signs with incorrect statements’ based on ‘prejudice and lies’. The technology subtly engineers reality, preventing users accessing objective historical truths.

AI also undermines the right to a fair trial. In courts that lack judicial independence, AI systems that recommend sentences or predict recidivism act as a black box that defence lawyers cannot scrutinise.

Pervasive surveillance changes behaviour even when not actively used, so its chilling effect may be as significant as direct deployment. Knowing their conversations may be monitored, people self-censor online and in private messaging. Emotion recognition in prisons takes this further: people can theoretically be flagged for their internal states of mind. It’s not just actions that are punished, but also thoughts.

Which groups are most affected?

While AI-enabled surveillance affects all people, ethnic minorities such as Koreans, Mongolians, Tibetans and Uyghurs are disproportionately targeted.

Mainstream LLMs are trained primarily in Mandarin, leaving little commercial incentive to develop AI for minority languages. The Chinese state, however, views those languages as a security vulnerability. State-funded institutions, including the National Key Laboratory at Minzu University, are building LLMs in minority languages, not for cultural preservation, but to power public-opinion control and prevention platforms. These scan text, audio and video in Tibetan and Uyghur to detect cultural advocacy, dissent or religious activity.

Feminist activists, human rights lawyers — particularly since the 709 crackdown in 2015 — labour activists and religious minorities including Falun Gong practitioners face disproportionate targeting. Chinese models consistently adopt state-aligned narratives about such groups, labelling Falun Gong a cult and avoiding human rights framing. Since 2020, Hong Kongers have also been subject to National Security Law surveillance using many of the same tools deployed on the mainland, a reminder that this infrastructure can be rapidly extended.

How can activists in China protect themselves?

Protecting oneself inside China is increasingly difficult. AI leaves very few blind spots. But the system is not perfectly omniscient.

Activists have historically relied on coded speech, euphemisms and satire, the classic example being the use of ‘Winnie the Pooh’ to refer to President Xi Jinping. Because AI struggles with cultural nuance and evolving memes, new linguistic workarounds can temporarily bypass automated filters. But this is a relentless game of Whac-a-Mole: Chinese tech companies employ thousands of human content reviewers whose only job is to catch new memes and feed them back into the AI.

The most practical steps are to use VPNs to access blocked platforms, secure communications apps such as Signal and separate devices for sensitive work. None of these are foolproof. VPN use is technically illegal and increasingly detected and Signal can only be accessed via VPN. It helps to keep a minimal digital footprint and communicate face-to-face on sensitive matters. For activists in Xinjiang, however, surveillance is so pervasive that individual precautions offer little protection. Strong international networks and rigorous documentation practices are essential.

Is China exporting these technologies?

China is the world’s largest exporter of AI-powered surveillance technology, marketing these systems globally, particularly to the global south.

The Chinese state is purposefully expanding its minority-language public-opinion monitoring software throughout Belt and Road Initiative countries, effectively extending its censorship apparatus to monitor Tibetan and Uyghur diaspora communities abroad. Chinese companies including Dahua, Hikvision, Huawei and ZTE have deployed surveillance and ‘safe city’ systems across over 100 countries, with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates among the most significant recipients. Critically, these companies operate under China’s 2017 National Intelligence Law, which requires cooperation with state intelligence, meaning data flowing through these systems could be accessible to Beijing as well as to purchasing governments.

China is also exporting its governance model through the open-source release of its LLMs, embedding Chinese censorship norms into foundational infrastructure used by developers worldwide.

What should the international community do?

The international community must recognise that countering this requires regulatory pushback.

First, democratic states should set minimum transparency standards for public procurement. This means refusing to purchase AI models that conceal political or historical censorship and mandating that providers publish a ‘moderation log’ with refusal reason codes so users know when content is restricted for political reasons.

Second, states should enact ‘safe-harbour laws’ to protect civil society organisations, journalists and researchers who audit AI models for hidden censorship. Currently, doing so can breach corporate terms of service.

Third, strict export controls should block the transfer of repression-enabling technologies to authoritarian regimes, while companies providing public-opinion management services should be excluded from democratic markets. Existing targeted sanctions on companies such as Dahua and Hikvision for their role in Xinjiang should be enforced more rigorously.

Finally, the international community must recognise that Chinese surveillance extends beyond China’s borders. Spyware targeting Tibetan and Uyghur activists in exile is well-documented, as is pressure on family members remaining in China. Rigorous documentation by international civil society remains essential for building the evidentiary record for future accountability.

CIVICUS interviews a wide range of civil society activists, experts and leaders to gather diverse perspectives on civil society action and current issues for publication on its CIVICUS Lens platform. The views expressed in interviews are the interviewees’ and do not necessarily reflect those of CIVICUS. Publication does not imply endorsement of interviewees or the organisations they represent.

GET IN TOUCH
Website
LinkedIn
Twitter/X

SEE ALSO
Technology: innovation without accountability CIVICUS | 2026 State of Civil Society Report
The silencing of Hong Kong CIVICUS Lens 25.Jun.2025
The long reach of authoritarianism CIVICUS Lens 20.Mar.2024

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Policing exhibit at the Museum of Weed. An IDPC report paints a picture of an increasingly punitive approach to drugs in some countries, but also highlights reforms. Credit: Bret Kavanaugh/Unsplash

By Ed Holt
BRATISLAVA, Feb 19 2026 (IPS)

Drug reform campaigners have called for an overhaul of global drug controls amid an increasingly complex and deadly drug situation in the world and as hardline anti-drug approaches are increasingly being used as cover for repression of civil society and human rights defenders.

A report released earlier this month by the International Drug Policy Consortium (IDPC) assessed progress made since the 2016 UN General Assembly Special Session (UNGASS) on drugs, widely viewed as a potential turning point in global drug policy.

It found that the promise of UNGASS remains largely unfulfilled – despite notable progress in some areas – and that punitive and prohibitionist approaches continue to dominate global drug control, despite their enormous human and financial cost.

“Punitive approaches [to drugs] are costing lives, undermining human rights and wasting public resources, while silencing the very communities that hold the solutions. This report shows why governments must move beyond rhetoric and commit to real structural reform,” Ann Fordham, IDPC Executive Director, said.

Advocates of drug policy reform have for decades pointed to evidence showing how hardline drug policies have completely failed.

The IDPC report documents how current prohibitive policies have, far from curbing drug markets, contributed to their massive expansion and diversification, while at the same time the number of people who use drugs continues to rise and is now estimated at 316 million worldwide – a 28 percent increase since 2016.

The group says repressive policies are also driving devastating and preventable harms. These include:  2.6 million drug use-related deaths between 2016 and 2021, with projections indicating further sharp increases since; mass incarceration – one in five people globally incarcerated are for drug offences – disproportionately affecting marginalised communities; over 150 countries report inadequate access to opioid pain relief due to overly restrictive controls on essential medicines;  expanding use of the death penalty for drug offences; and the displacement of illegal drug activities into remote and environmentally fragile regions, including Central America and the Amazon basin, as a result of interdiction and eradication efforts.

Despite this evidence, many countries continue to pursue hardline drug policies.

Fordham said this was because of “the vast vested interests in the status quo”.

“The prison industrial complex is a prime example of this. Our report documents that one in five people in prison are incarcerated for drugs globally, while evidence shows that this strategy has done nothing to reduce the scale of the illegal drug markets,” she told IPS.

The group has also highlighted a worrying return to prominence of ‘war on drugs’ rhetoric – popular in the 1970s and 1980s – which it says is increasingly being used to justify militarisation, repression and violations of international law, including the Trump Administration’s weaponising of ‘narco-terrorism’ narratives to legitimise extraterritorial force and roll back rights, health and development commitments enshrined in the UNGASS Outcome Document.

“Punitive and hard-on-drugs narratives serve other interests for populist leaders, with drug policies being used to scapegoat people who use drugs and other people involved in the illegal drug market for broader societal issues, including homelessness and increases in levels of violence.

“Drug control is also increasingly used to restrict civil society space by threatening or attacking civil society and community organisations promoting much-needed reforms and condemning their governments for egregious human rights violations,” said Fordham.

Other drug policy reform advocates and experts have said this trend has become increasingly evident in the last year.

“Over the last year, we can definitely see the emergence of some new [drug policy] trends. First of all, there has been a radical change of rhetoric and narratives under US President Donald Trump’s administration,” Anton Basenko, Executive Director of the International Network of People Who Use Drugs (INPUD), told IPS.

He also highlighted how governments are using drug policy as a cover for breaches of international law to further other political aims, citing the claim by the US administration that the recent abduction of Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro by US forces was connected to stopping illegal drugs from coming into America.

“Over the last year, there have been completely different narratives from leading countries [on drug policy], like the U.S. And of course, some countries politically are always looking to the U.S. and listening to what they are saying and they might try to replicate something similar politically, using America’s action as an example,” he said.

Other experts fear there is a real risk this could lead to a worsening of wider human rights problems in other countries.

“The shamelessness with which the US is now trampling on international law, using the war on drugs as cover for some of its most egregious violations, is deeply troubling. There is certainly a risk that it licenses other actors to be even more brazen in their abuses of international human rights law regarding drugs and more generally,” Steve Rolles, Senior Policy Analyst at the UK-based Transform Drug Policy Foundation, told IPS.

The IDPC report draws a set of conclusions emphasising the need for reform and modernisation of current UN drug control treaties as well as, among others, a reconfiguration of the global drug control system so that it is orientated on rights, health and development.

The group says this is especially important now as the United Nations prepares to implement system-wide reforms and an independent expert panel begins reviewing the international drug control regime, providing a rare opportunity to “correct course”.

But that call also comes at a time when, as the IDPC points out, the work of organisations which have been successful in driving drug policy reform, as well as the implementation of life-saving harm-reduction programmes, community advocacy and civil society are battling funding crises.

Cuts to foreign aid funding by major donor states, especially the US, over the last year have been devastating for civil society, including groups working  to combat HIV and help vulnerable communities, including drug users, around the world. Funding for harm reduction, which has historically been low, is now in crisis, campaigners say.

“In 2022, available harm reduction funding amounted to just 6% of the USD 2.7 billion needed annually. The Trump administration’s decision to halt funding for HIV and harm reduction in 2025 has turned the harm reduction funding crisis into a catastrophe,” said Fordham.

“State-funded and third-sector voluntary services are all feeling the pinch, and even services funded by philanthropy are seeing priorities shift towards emerging crises. Many services will struggle on as best they can, but inevitably there is a terrible cost when services proven to save lives are starved of funds or closed down,” added Rolles.

However, it is precisely because of these funding constraints that it is vital, IDPC argues, that its recommendations are taken on board by global policymakers.

“The funding constraints and current challenges faced by the UN and multilateralism more broadly make our recommendations all the more important. The current system is clearly outdated and harmful, only serving to undermine health, human rights, development, human security, and environment protection – all the key objectives that the UN was created to uphold in the first place,” said Fordham.

But while the IDPC report paints a picture of an increasingly punitive and prohibitive approach to drugs in some countries, it also highlights significant progress in the introduction of more progressive policies in a number of countries.

These include important policy shifts in many jurisdictions towards decriminalisation and the legal regulation of cannabis, both for medical and recreational purposes.

Hundreds of millions of people now live in jurisdictions where recreational cannabis is legal, with markets having been created in Africa, Asia, Europe, and the Americas. The IDPC report also suggests a renewed interest in psychedelics may soon drive a new wave of regulatory innovation.

“Just over 10 years ago, nowhere in the world had legally regulated adult-use cannabis. Today more than 500 million people live in over 40 jurisdictions with some form of legally regulated adult access… for me, this demonstrates how reforms that seemed impossible just a few years ago are now being realised on every continent,” said Rolles.

He added that there had been “notable progress [on drug policy reform] across the last decade, including the continuing wave of cannabis reforms across the Americas, the EU and much of the world; the spread of innovative harm reduction in response to the opioid epidemic; progress on decriminalisation in other jurisdictions; and an increasingly sophisticated reform narrative gaining traction in high-level forums – including endorsements for reform, including regulation of all drugs”.

“An increase in jurisdictions legalising and regulating cannabis feels inevitable. There are strong movements and political support for change in a number of Latin American and European countries,” Rolles said.

These reforms were driven in large part by non-state and civil society organisations – those same organisations which are seeing their funding and the freedom to press their case increasingly shrinking in many states.

But drug policy reform advocates are not expecting progress to stop despite the challenges such groups face.

“Almost all of the [cannabis legal regulation] reform has been driven by civil society advocacy, rather than top-down leadership from governments. Just as with harm reduction and decriminalisation reforms over the past decades, civil society is showing the leadership where elected politicians so often fall down. This will doubtless continue to be the case going forward. This is the moment to step up the fight, not to cower in the face of rising authoritarianism,” said Rolles.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

A man walks past a campaign poster for the military’s proxy party USDP ahead of strictly controlled elections in Myanmar. Credit: Guy Dinmore/IPS

By Guy Dinmore
YANGON, Myanmar and BANGKOK , Jan 6 2026 (IPS)

With thousands of civilians killed in years of civil war and over 22,000 political prisoners still behind bars, no one was surprised that early results from Myanmar’s first but tightly controlled elections since the 2021 coup show the military’s proxy party speeding to victory.

“How can you hold elections and bomb civilians at the same time?” asked Khin Ohmar, a civil rights activist outside Myanmar who is monitoring what the resistance forces and a shadow government reject as “sham” polls.

The junta had already cleared the path towards its stated goal of a “genuine, disciplined multi-party democratic system” by dissolving some 40 parties that refused to register for polls, which they regard as illegitimate, with their leaders and supporters still in prison.

These include the National League for Democracy (NLD) and its leader, Aung San Suu Kyi, who won a landslide second term  in the 2020 elections – only for the results to be annulled by Senior General Min Aung Hlaing, a coup leader and self-appointed acting president. Mass street protests were crushed in early 2021 and war spread across Myanmar.

Although these elections will deliver just a façade of the legitimacy craved by some of the generals, they did succeed in projecting a power and authority that was quickly slipping away just two years ago as long-standing ethnic armed groups and newly formed People’s Defence Forces (PDFs) inflicted a series of humiliating defeats on the junta.

“The tide has turned in favour of the military,” commented a veteran Myanmar analyst in Yangon, crediting China, which reined in the ethnic groups on its shared border, fully embraced Min Aung Hlaing and, along with Russia, delivered the arms, technology and training needed to peg back the resistance.

Campaigners for the pro-military USDP canvas residents and check voters lists in Yangon ahead of the December 28 parliamentary election that excluded major anti-junta parties. Credit: Guy Dinmore/IPS

The regime’s air power and newly acquired drones have been deployed to ruthless effect, often hitting civilian targets in relatively remote areas where the resistance has grassroots support. Air strikes were stepped up as the elections approached. Major cities like Yangon were calm; people subdued.

Bombs dropped on Tabayin township in the Sagaing Region on December 5 killed 18 people, including many in a busy tea shop, AFP reported. On December 10, air strikes on a hospital in the ancient capital of Mrauk-U in Rakhine State were reported to have killed 10 patients and 23 others. The regime accused the insurgent Arakan Army and PDFs of using it as a base.

“I don’t think that anyone believes that those elections will be free and fair,” UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres stated while visiting the region ahead of the polls. He called on the junta to end its “deplorable” violence and find “a credible path” back to civilian rule.

In contrast, the Trump administration declared in November that the junta’s election plans were “free and fair” and removed Temporary Protected Status from Myanmar refugees in the US, saying their country was safe for them to return to.

“I’ll be jailed if I don’t vote,” said Min, a Yangon taxi driver, only half-joking on the eve of voting in Yangon, the commercial capital. “And what difference does it make? We are ruled by China and Xi Jinping, not Min Aung Hlaing,” he added.

With the polls spread over three stages, the first 102 townships voted on December 28. Others will follow on January 11 and January 25 to make a total of 265 of Myanmar’s 330 townships scheduled to vote for the bicameral national parliament and assemblies in the 14 regions and states.

Residents in downtown Yangon check their names on the electoral register and then cast their votes in a polling station on December 28. Credit: Guy Dinmore/IPS

No voting is to be held at all in the remaining 65 townships that the election commission deemed too unsafe.

Voting in the first round in Yangon, an urban and semi-rural sprawl of seven million people, proceeded calmly and slowly on a quiet Sunday – despite intense efforts, and sometimes threats, by the regime to boost the turnout.

In 2020 and 2015 – when Myanmar arguably held the region’s most open and fair elections and the military’s proxy Union Solidarity and Development Party (USDP), was soundly defeated – people gaily posted images of their ink-stained little fingers on social media as evidence of their vote after weeks of packed rallies and vibrant campaign rallies.

But not this time. Social media posts hurled insults, some comic and vulgar, at the regime. Those eager to support the resistance’s boycott but who were afraid of reprisals were relieved if they found their names had been omitted by mistake on electoral lists. Electronic voting machines in use for the first time made it impossible to leave a blank.

But as in past elections, a solid core of people close to the military and its web of powerful economic interests turned out to vote for the USDP.

“We are choosing our government,” declared one man exiting a polling station in central Yangon with his family, apparently USDP supporters. One proudly waved his little finger dipped in indelible ink.

How can you hold elections and bomb civilians at the same time? - Khin Ohmar, civil rights activist
Turnout for the first round was put by regime officials at 52 percent. This compares with about 70 percent in the past two elections. China’s special envoy – sent as an official observer, along with others from Russia, Belarus, Vietnam and Cambodia – praised the elections.

On January 2, the election commission unexpectedly issued partial results: the USDP, led by retired generals, had won 38 of 40 seats in the lower house where votes had been tallied to date. No one blinked.

The USDP campaign message focused on two main elements – get out and vote with all your family, and back a USDP government to restore stability and progress to Myanmar.

Its underlying message was a reminder that the last USDP administration, led by President Thein Sein introduced socio-economic and political reforms and ceasefire negotiations with ethnic groups after securing a large majority in the 2010 elections when the NLD and other opposition groups were also absent.

Aung San Suu Kyi, then under house arrest, was released just after the 2010 polls and went on to contest and win a seat in a 2012 by-election ahead of the NLD’s own sweeping victory in 2015. Aung San Suu Kyi governed in a difficult power-sharing arrangement with the military for the next five years and was thrown back into prison in the coup.

For now a large proportion of Myanmar’s population lives in areas under junta control, including all 14 of the state and regional capitals, swollen by an influx of people fleeing conflict.  The military also holds major seaports and airports and – to varying degrees – the main border crossings for China and Thailand.

But in terms of territory, over half of Myanmar is in the hands of disparate ethnic armed groups and resistance forces. Alliances are fluid and negotiable.

The shadow National Unity Government is trying to establish its own authority over liberated territory, looking to cement a consensus around the concept of a democratic and federal Myanmar free of the military’s interference – something that has eluded the country since independence from British colonial rule in 1948.

Front lines shift back and forth as the military struggles to regain control over the Bamar heartlands of central Myanmar, once considered their bastion, while stretched elsewhere after losing vast tracts of border areas since the coup. Several million people have fled the country or are internally displaced.

Once again there is some speculation that a “smooth” election and the formation of a USDP government in April will lead to a gesture signalling the military’s confidence, such as a possible ending of forced conscription and the release of some political prisoners. Project power, then collect legitimacy.

“Political prisoners are used as bait,” said Khin Ohmar, the civil rights activist in Bangkok. “The world would at least have to applaud.”

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Family agriculture and land defenders in Colombia. Credit: Both Nomads/Forus

By Bibbi Abruzzini and Lucia Torres (Forus) and Jake Wieczorek (Hivos)
BELÉM, Brazil, Nov 10 2025 (IPS)

As the world prepares for the next COP30 summit, a quieter battle is raging in courtrooms. Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs) are the fossil-fuel industry’s new favourite weapon, turning justice systems into instruments of intimidation.

“Speak out, and you’ll pay for it”

On a humid morning in August 2025, two small environmental groups in Panama — Centro de Incidencia Ambiental and Adopta Bosque Panamá — found out through social media that they were being sued for “slander” and “crimes against the national economy.” Their offence? Criticising a port project on the country’s Pacific coast.

A few days later, across the border in Costa Rica, two environmental content creators woke up to find their bank accounts frozen and salaries withheld. Their “crime” was posting videos about a tourism project they said was damaging Playa Panamá’s fragile coastline.

In both cases, the message was straightforward: speak out, and you’ll pay for it.

These are part of a growing global trend that is particularly ominous as climate activists, Indigenous defenders, and journalists push their demands upon the upcoming COP30 negotiations. The battle to protect the planet increasingly comes with an additional cost: defending yourself in court.

SLAPPs: Lawsuits Designed to Scare, Not Win

The acronym sounds almost trivial — SLAPP — but its impact is anything but. SLAPP stands for Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation, a term coined decades ago to describe legal actions intended not to win on merit but to intimidate, exhaust, and silence those who speak out on matters of public interest.

According to Transparency International, “SLAPPs are also known as frivolous lawsuits or gag lawsuits, as they silence journalists, activists, whistleblowers, NGOs and anyone who brings facts to light in the public interest.”

These are not just lawsuits; they are in fact strategy. They don’t need to win, they just need to drain your time, your money, and your hope.

The claimants are usually powerful, ranging from corporations, politicians, or investors.

In the Costa Rican case, the company linked to the Playa Panama tourism project did not even allege material harm. Yet the court imposed “precautionary embargoes,” blocking credit cards, freezing wages, even restricting property rights, punishing through the process.

In Panama, the developers of the Puerto Barú port project filed a criminal complaint against environmental NGOs who had challenged the project’s environmental impact assessment before the Supreme Court. Those challenges are still pending. Rather than waiting for the judiciary’s ruling, the company launched a separate legal attack, accusing those NGOs of harming the national economy.

Observers call it “judicial intimidation.” The case triggered several alerts across the EU SEE Early Warning Mechanism, warning of a “chilling effect on civic participation.”

‘Unfortunately, in Panama, judicial harassment of journalists and activists by politicians and businesspeople is already common practice because criminal law allows it. Reform is needed in relation to so-called crimes against honour and the grounds for seizure of assets. International organisations such as the Inter-American Press Association have warned about this,’ says Olga de Obaldía, executive director of Transparency International – Panama Chapter, a national member of the EU SEE network.

In Costa Rica, the embargoes imposed on content creators Juan Bautista Alfaro and Javier Adelfang sparked outrage. Within days, 72 organisations and more than 3,000 individuals — from academics to Indigenous leaders — signed an open letter condemning the action as “an assault on public interest advocacy.”

The backlash worked: members of the Frente Amplio Party introduced a bill to restrict the use of preventive embargoes in cases involving public interest speech.

But for those already targeted, the damage – emotional, financial and reputational – has already been done.

We do not just see SLAPPs deployed in Latin America. Examples of SLAPPs as a means of lawfare by the rich and powerful have been around for a long time across the globe.

In Thailand, Thammakaset sued several members of the NGO Fortify Rights and other activists for denouncing abusive working conditions. Still today content posted by communities or NGOs, or even comments under local government posts, are often picked up and turned into criminal defamation cases.

Despite the existence of anti-SLAPP provisions in the Criminal Procedure Code, experiences indicate that they are largely ineffective. The constant threat of facing litigation based on online content disrupts CSO work and chills free speech.

Climate Activism Under Pressure

As the world heads toward another global climate summit in Brazil – where journalist Amanda Miranda faces a SLAPP by government officials for uncovering corruption – we face a paradox: while governments make promises about protecting the environment, environmental defenders are being prosecuted for holding them accountable.

Brazil’s baseline snapshot on an enabling environment also highlights a related trend: environmental defenders are frequently framed as “anti-development,” a narrative used to delegitimise their work and undermine public support. SLAPPs reinforce this strategy. Beyond draining time and resources, these lawsuits inflict reputational harm, serving as tools in broader campaigns to discredit and silence critics.

According to research from the Business & Human Rights Resource Centre, the highest number of SLAPPs – almost half of them – took place in Latin America, followed by Asia and the Pacific (25%), Europe & Central Asia (18%), Africa (8.5%), and North America (9%). Nearly three-quarters of cases were brought in countries in the Global South and 63% of cases involved criminal charges. Furthermore, most individuals and groups facing SLAPPs raised concerns about projects in four sectors: mining, agriculture and livestock, logging and lumber, and finally palm oil.

In an International Center for Non-Profit law – ICNL – study on over 80 cases of SLAPPs across the Global South, out of them “91% were brought by private companies or company officials(…) 41% brought by mining companies and (…) 34% brought by companies associated with agriculture.”

According to data from the CASE Coalition, SLAPP cases have risen sharply in recent years: from 570 cases in 2022 to over 820 in 2023 in Europe alone. Around half of those targeted climate, land, and labor rights defenders. Fossil fuel and extractive industries remain the most frequent initiators.

It is important to remember that those numbers under-represent the extent of SLAPP use, they are based on reported legal cases and can’t include the many cases in which the mere threat of a lawsuit was enough to silence before filing a complaint

The Business & Human Rights Resource Centre has documented that companies linked to mining, tourism, and large infrastructure projects are increasingly using SLAPPs to paralyse critics ahead of international events like COP, when scrutiny intensifies.

The danger of SLAPPs lies in their quietness. They happen behind closed doors, in legal language, far from the marches and hashtags. The trials often do not even end up in lawsuits. Yet their effect is profound. Every frozen bank account, every unpaid legal fee, every public apology extracted under duress weakens the collective courage needed to hold power to account.

Across regions, SLAPPs follow the same playbook: identify outspoken defenders, sue them on vague charges like “defamation” or “economic harm”, drag the process out for years, win by exhausting, not convincing.

Of course, the specific tactics vary by legal context. In some countries, certain charges carry strategic advantages. For example, in the Philippines, authorities frequently rely on serious, non-bailable allegations — including charges like illegal possession of firearms — to keep activists detained for extended periods.

The Philippines remains the most dangerous country in Asia for land and environmental defenders with frequent attacks linked to mining, agribusiness, and water projects.

Political repression persists and civil society groups continue to face “red-tagging” and SLAPPs, further enabled by the passage of the Anti-Terrorism Act, the Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2001, and the Terrorism Financing Prevention and Suppression Act of 2012.

Authorities have also used fabricated firearms and explosives charges to target activists, journalists, and community leaders, often accompanied by asset freezes, surveillance, and prolonged detention. In these settings, SLAPPs can “weaponise” the criminal justice system itself to remove critics from public life entirely.

SLAPPs have become the invisible front of the climate struggle, a slow-motion suppression campaign that rarely makes headlines.

Tactics to Fight Back

In early 2024, the European Union adopted its first-ever Anti-SLAPP Directive, a milestone achievement after years of campaigning by journalists and civil society. It sets out minimum standards to prevent abusive lawsuits and protect public participation.

But implementation remains uncertain. The Vice-President of the European Commission, Vera Jourova, called the Directive “Daphne’s law,” in memory of the Maltese journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia, who was killed in 2017 while she was the victim of numerous legal proceedings against her, and whose tragic story helped raise awareness of the issue.

Beyond the European context, similar efforts to counter SLAPPs have emerged elsewhere, for example in Colombia with the Guerra v. Ruiz-Navarro case. This case illustrates the importance of investigating sexual violence and abuse of power, recognising it as a matter of public interest that warrants protection. This ruling sets a strong precedent against the misuse of courts to silence the press by influential figures and underscores that defending victims and informing the public are acts of defending human rights.

In Indonesia, another country where SLAPPs are being deployed, civil society groups continue to advocate for stronger legal protections, including legislation to protect from SLAPPs. A small step forward came in September 2024, when the Ministry of Environment and Forestry issued Regulation No. 10/2024, on legal protection for environmental defenders.

“While the Ministry of Environment and Forestry Regulation No. 10/2024 represents an initial step toward safeguarding environmental defenders, civil society organisations expect its effective implementation, coupled with broader anti-SLAPP legislation, to ensure comprehensive protection against retaliatory lawsuits and foster a secure environment for public participation in environmental governance,” says Intan Kusumaning Tiyas of INFID, national civil society platform in Indonesia.

Civil society groups are calling for action on immediate priorities.

These include stronger legal safeguards by enacting robust national anti-SLAPP laws that allow for early case dismissal, ensure defendants can recover legal costs, and penalise those who file abusive lawsuits.

Setting up solidarity and support through regional and global networks can quickly mobilise legal assistance, mental health support, and emergency funding for those targeted.

Finally, actions around visibility and accountability are needed to bring SLAPPs into the public eye and raise awareness. SLAPPs need to be framed not as ordinary legal conflicts, but as violations of human rights that weaken an enabling environment for civil society, democratic participation and obstruct climate justice.

At COP30, negotiators will debate carbon credits and transition funds. But the real test of climate commitment may lie in whether states protect the people defending rivers, forests, and coastlines from powerful interests.

Civil society hopes to push a bold message into COP30 discussions: defending the environment requires defending those who defend it and supporting an enabling environment for civil society.

This article was written with the support of the Forus team, particularly Lena Muhs, and members of the EU SEE network.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Headlines reflecting the release of Belarusian political prisoners. Graphic: IPS

By Ed Holt
BRATISLAVA, Oct 7 2025 (IPS)

As Belarusian president Alexander Lukashenko continues to pardon political prisoners in an apparently increasingly successful attempt to improve diplomatic relations with the US, rights groups have warned the international community must not let itself be ‘tricked’ into thinking repressions in the country are easing.

Lukashenko, who has ruled Belarus for more than 30 years, last month (SEP) ordered the release of more than 75 prisoners, the majority of them political prisoners, after negotiations with US officials.

But critics have said while the release of any prisoners is welcome, it should not be taken as a sign that the persecution of the regime’s opponents is about to stop, and they point out that people are being jailed for their politics in Belarus at a faster rate than any are being released.

“While it is good that prisoners have been released, they should never have been in prison in the first place. There is a risk now that the attention of the international community will be diverted from the continuing repressions in the country. People are still in prison, and still being imprisoned, for exercising their human rights. While Lukashenko is releasing people, he is at the same time arresting more – it’s like a revolving door,” Maria Guryeva, Senior Campaigner at Amnesty International, told IPS.

The warnings follow the release on September 11 of 52 prisoners—the majority of whom were political prisoners—and the freeing on September 16 of a further 25 prisoners from Belarusian jails.

This came after direct negotiations with US officials and in return for an easing of sanctions on Belarus’s national airline, Belavia.

The releases were also followed by confirmation from US officials involved in the negotiations that US President Donald Trump had told Lukashenko that Washington wants to reopen its embassy in Minsk. Trump also spoke to Lukashenko on the phone earlier in the summer and has reportedly even suggested that a meeting between the two could take place in the near future.

Political experts say that much closer ties between Washington and Minsk, not to mention an easing of sanctions, would be a major PR coup for Lukashenko. It could also be attractive to President Donald Trump, as it would underscore his own touted credentials as a master conciliator and a defender of human rights who can free political prisoners.

Rights activists, though, fear that seeing such political gains from his actions will only embolden Lukashenko to use prisoners as “bargaining chips” to extract further political concessions in the future.

“It seems like this is a new tactic [by the Belarusian regime] to use political prisoners as bargaining chips, [and] it seems to be working in that Belarus is getting political favors for releasing prisoners. As long as the regime sees it can use them as bargaining chips, this policy will continue,” Anastasiia Kroupe, Assistant Researcher, Europe and Central Asia, at Human Rights Watch, told IPS.

Activists argue that ultimately, any concessions by the US, or other western nations, to the regime will do nothing to improve the dire situation with human rights violations in Belarus, especially given that there remain so many political prisoners in Belarusian jails—the rights group Viasna said that as of September 18 there were 1,184 political prisoners in Belarus—that Lukashenko could release when it is expedient.

They also point out that in some cases the individual releases in September were barely even pardons as such, given that many who were freed were just months or even weeks away from the end of their sentences anyway. The prisoners were, once ‘free,’ also forcibly deported from the country—one, opposition politician Mikalai Statkevich, refused to leave Belarus after being freed and was soon after re-arrested—to neighboring Lithuania.

“The fact that these prisoners were forcibly exiled is a further form of reprisal against them… for some it is a continuation of their punishment,” said Kroupe.

Belarusian rights activists told IPS that the mood among those who had been released was mixed.

While some were glad to be free, others were angry.

“A number of those released are extremely frustrated. Some had literally just a month left to serve and were planning to continue living in Belarus. They had almost fully served their, albeit unjustly imposed, sentences, but instead of freedom, they were punished once again,” Enira Bronitskaya, an activist with the Belarusian rights group Human Constanta, whose activities include helping exiled Belarusians, told IPS.

“They were thrown out of their country; many had their passports taken away (torn up), effectively stripped of their citizenship (deprived of documents, expelled from the country, with no intention from the state of their citizenship to provide any support). These actions are unlawful. People have been deprived of everything they had in Belarus, from property to the possibility of visiting the graves of their relatives who died while they were in prison,” she added.

Others among the Belarusian community in exile told IPS there were concerns the releases could actually be used as a distraction from an even more intense crackdown on dissent.

“In our community, some are hopeful that the releases are a sign of successful negotiations, but the majority, me included, does not find the news particularly positive. Of course it is a great relief for the people released and their relatives, but we are expecting an intensification of repressions,” Maryna Morozova*, who left Belarus for Poland soon after Lukashenko launched a massive crackdown on dissent following disputed elections in 2020, told IPS.

Just days after the 52 prisoners were released, a Belarusian court sentenced prominent independent journalist Ihar Ilyash to four years in prison on charges of extremism over articles and commentaries critical of Lukashenko.

The Belarusian Association of Journalists said the verdict was a sign that the authorities had no intention of softening their clampdown on independent media, pointing out that at least 27 journalists are currently behind bars in the country.

Exiled Belarusian opposition leader Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya told international media after the September releases that “the regime’s repressions are continuing despite Trump’s pleas.”

Viasna pointed out that just on the same day the 52 prisoners were released, it had recognized eight new political prisoners.

Activists who spoke to IPS said it seemed likely that, given the apparent success of the prisoner releases in easing, to some extent, Belarus’s international isolation and sanctions, more prisoners could be freed in the near future.

“Of course we expect more releases. Lukashenko’s been doing it for many years—he did it in 2010 and 2015 when political prisoners were released. Lukashenko has a lot of experience in this ‘market,’” Nataliia Satsunkevich, an interim board member at Viasna, told IPS. “Generally, we can see that his policy [of using prisoner releases to get political concessions] works. There are goals he is trying to achieve [by using it],” she added.

Meanwhile, campaigners are urging governments to put human rights, and not politics, at the center of any future negotiations on prisoner releases.

“Every effort should be taken to free political prisoners but there needs to be a clear signal that human rights abuses are not being forgotten about and that no one is being tricked into thinking the repressions are over,” said Kroupe.

“Lukashenko is treating political prisoners like political currency, like hostages. Governments should stop this trade-off and force Lukashenko to comply with human rights law and put pressure on him to unconditionally release all political prisoners,” added Guryeva.

*NAME HAS BEEN CHANGED FOR SECURITY REASONS

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Credit: Pavel Bednyakov/Pool via Reuters

By Inés M. Pousadela
MONTEVIDEO, Uruguay, Oct 3 2025 (IPS)

When Mali’s former Prime Minister Moussa Mara stood trial in Bamako’s cybercrime court on 29 September, charged with undermining state authority for expressing solidarity with political prisoners on social media, his prosecution represented far more than one person’s fate. It epitomised how thoroughly the military junta has dismantled Mali’s democratic foundations, five years after seizing power with promises of swift reform.

Just a week before Mara’s trial, Mali joined fellow military-run states Burkina Faso and Niger in announcing immediate withdrawal from the International Criminal Court (ICC). Although the withdrawal won’t take effect for a year and the ICC retains jurisdiction over past crimes, the message was unmistakable: Mali’s military rulers intend to operate beyond international legal constraints.

This follows a pattern of escalating repression, including arrests of senior generals and civilians over alleged conspiracy in August, coming months after sweeping decrees outlawed political parties and dissolved all organised opposition. Rather than preparing for the democratic handover initially promised for 2022 and repeatedly postponed, the junta is methodically shutting down what remains of Mali’s civic space.

A transition derailed

When General Assimi Goïta first seized power in August 2020 following mass protests over corruption and insecurity, he pledged to oversee a quick return to civilian rule. But less than a year later, he staged a second coup to sideline transitional civilian leaders. In 2023, the junta organised a constitutional referendum, claiming it would pave the way to democracy. The new constitution, supposedly approved by 97 per cent of voters, provided for significantly strengthened presidential powers while conveniently granting amnesty to coup participants. Deadlines for elections kept slipping, and they’re now effectively off the table until at least 2030.

A national consultation held in April, boycotted by virtually all major political parties, recommended appointing Goïta as president for a renewable five-year term until 2030, obviously contradicting any pledges to restore multi-party democracy.

An all-out assault on political parties ensued. Presidential decrees in May suspended all parties, revoked the 2005 Charter of Political Parties that provided the legal framework for political competition and dissolved close to 300 parties, forbidding all meetings or activities under threat of prosecution. Courts predictably rejected appeals, having become beholden to the executive under the 2023 constitutional changes that gave Goïta absolute control over Supreme Court appointments. The regime announced a new law on political parties to sharply restrict their number and impose stricter formation requirements, making clear it wants a tightly managed political landscape stripped of genuine pluralism.

Crushing civic freedoms

The assault on civic space extends beyond political parties. The junta has suspended civil society groups receiving foreign funding, imposed stringent regulatory controls and introduced draft legislation aimed at taxing civil society organisations. Independent media face systematic silencing through licence suspensions and revocations, astronomic increases in licence fees and weaponised cybercrime laws targeting journalists with vague charges such as undermining state credibility and spreading false information. Religious figures, opposition leaders and civil society activists have faced arrests, enforced disappearances and show trials.

The crackdown sparked the first major public resistance to military rule since 2020, with thousands protesting in Bamako in early May against the party ban and extension of Goïta’s mandate, only to be dispersed with teargas. Planned follow-up protests were cancelled after organisers received warnings of violent retaliation. The regime has made clear it won’t tolerate peaceful dissent.

What lies ahead

Five years after seizing power, Mali keeps taking the opposite path to democracy. The initial coup enjoyed some popular support, fuelled by anger at corruption and the civilian government’s failure to address jihadist insurgencies. But no improvements have come. Jihadist groups are still killing thousands every year, while the Malian army and its new Russian mercenary allies, following the departure of French and allied forces, routinely commit atrocities against civilians. Meanwhile the freedoms that would allow people to voice grievances and demand accountability have been systematically stripped away.

Mali’s trajectory matters beyond its borders. It was the first in a series of Central and West African countries to fall under military rule in recent years and is now spearheading a regional pushback against global democracy and human rights standards. The international community has responded with condemnations from UN human rights experts and documentation from civil society groups, but these statements carry little weight. Economic Community of West African States sanctions lost their leverage when Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger withdrew to form the rival Alliance of Sahel States, creating a bloc of authoritarian military regimes that coordinate to suppress dissent across borders, backed by stronger ties to Russia.

What began as a supposed corrective to civilian misrule has hardened into outright authoritarianism dressed in the language of national security and public order. The junta has eliminated any domestic institution that might constrain its power and is now casting aside even international accountability mechanisms.

In this bleak context, Malian civil society activists, journalists and opposition figures continue speaking out at tremendous personal risk. Their courage demands more than statements of condemnation. It calls for tangible support in the form of emergency funding, secure communication channels, legal assistance, temporary refuge and sustained diplomatic pressure. The international community’s commitment to human rights and democratic values, in Mali and across Central and West Africa, must translate into meaningful solidarity with those risking everything to defend them.

Inés M. Pousadela is CIVICUS Head of Research and Analysis, co-director and writer for CIVICUS Lens and co-author of the State of Civil Society Report.

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

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

By Ben Malor
NEW YORK, Sep 30 2025 (IPS)

DANGER – WARNING – ALARM: Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Maria Ressa is warning that lies are being weaponized deliberately to manipulate people around the world. Big, profit-oriented, and technology-enabled companies are now disregarding or trampling over the sanctity and veracity of facts and information to speed up disinformation, (using AI) in ways that quickly erase truth and leave people manipulated.

Even democratic elections are getting manipulated to the extent that some 72 per cent of the world is now living under illiberal or authoritarian regimes that have been “democratically” elected. Journalism, fact-checking, and public trust are under attack from this deliberate subversion of information integrity.

Enjoy this interview I conducted with Ms Ressa, (produced, directed and edited by my UN News and Media colleagues, Paulina Kubiak and Alban Mendes De Leon).

Ben Malor is the Chief Editor, UN Dailies, at UN News.

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Julia Francisco Martínez stands at the graveside of her husband Juan, a Honduran Indigenous defender who was found murdered in 2015. Credit: Giles Clarke / Global Witness

By Umar Manzoor Shah
LONDON & SRINAGAR, Sep 19 2025 (IPS)

At least 146 land and environmental defenders were murdered or forcibly disappeared in 2024 for standing up against powerful state and corporate interests, according to a new report released by Global Witness.

The findings, published under the title Roots of Resistance, expose a persistent global crisis that has claimed 2,253 lives since 2012, and show that violence against those protecting land, forests, and communities continues with little sign of justice.

Although the 2024 figure is lower than the 196 killings recorded in 2023, Global Witness cautions that this does not represent progress. Instead, it reflects chronic underreporting, difficulties in verifying cases in conflict zones, and a climate of fear that silences victims’ families and communities.

Latin America: The Epicenter of Attacks

The report shows that 82 percent of documented killings took place in Latin America. Colombia once again topped the global list, with 48 killings accounting for nearly a third of all cases worldwide. The victims were mostly community leaders, Indigenous defenders, and small-scale farmers confronting mining, agribusiness, and organized crime.

Despite government pledges of reform, Colombia’s weak state presence in former conflict zones has allowed armed groups and criminal networks to dominate. This has created a deadly environment for activists who resist environmental destruction.

Mexico followed with 19 cases, including 18 killings and one disappearance. It marked the second most lethal year for Mexican defenders in the past decade. Brazil recorded 12 killings, half of them small-scale farmers.

The most alarming rise was seen in Guatemala, where killings spiked from four in 2023 to 20 in 2024, giving the country the highest per capita murder rate for defenders worldwide. This escalation took place despite the election of President Bernardo Arévalo, who had promised to curb corruption and inequality.

“Eighty-two percent of recorded attacks in 2024 were in Latin America, where we have consistently seen the highest proportion of cases for over a decade,” said Laura Furones, Senior Advisor at Global Witness and one of the report’s authors, in an interview with Inter Press Service. “Killings were concentrated in four countries, which together accounted for around 70 percent of the murders: Colombia, Guatemala, Mexico, and Brazil.”

According to Furones, Latin America’s rich natural resources, combined with strong civil society movements and widespread impunity, make it both a hotspot for extraction-related conflicts and for reporting of violence. “High levels of impunity mean there is little disincentive for violence to stop,” she said.

Who Are the Victims?

The report found clear patterns in who is most targeted. In 2024, 45 Indigenous defenders and 45 small-scale farmers were killed or disappeared. Together, they made up nearly two-thirds of all cases.

These killings are closely linked to profit-driven industries. Mining was identified as the deadliest sector, connected to 29 killings. Logging was tied to eight deaths, agribusiness to four. Organized crime was implicated in nearly a third of all attacks, often working with or tolerated by state forces.

State actors themselves, including police and military, were linked to 17 killings. In Colombia, only 5.2 percent of murders of social leaders since 2002 have been resolved in court, leaving the intellectual authors of the crimes almost untouched.
“Impunity fuels this cycle of violence,” the report notes. “Without justice, perpetrators feel emboldened to repeat attacks.”

Documenting Violence in Hostile Environments

Global Witness compiles its data through a systematic process of reviewing public information, analyzing datasets, and collaborating with local and regional organizations in more than 20 countries. Each case must be verified by credible sources with detailed information about the victim and the link to land or environmental defense.

Still, Furones acknowledged that many attacks go undocumented, particularly in authoritarian states, regions with limited civil society, or conflict zones. “These figures are likely underestimates,” she said.

Personal Stories Behind the Numbers

Beyond the statistics, the report highlights individual defenders whose struggles illustrate the human cost of the crisis.

In Nigeria, the Ekuri community has spent decades protecting one of West Africa’s last tropical rainforests. Activists like Louis Friday, Martins Egot, and Odey Oyama face threats from armed loggers and corrupt officials. Oyama was arrested in January 2025 by a masked police squad and charged with “promoting inter-communal war,” a crime that carries a life sentence. He says the charges are retaliation for his conservation work.

In Chile, 72-year-old Mapuche leader Julia Chufil disappeared in November 2024 while fighting to reclaim ancestral land from forestry companies. She had faced harassment and bribery offers for years. Her family, leading the search for her, say authorities have treated them as suspects rather than victims.

In Colombia, campesino leader Jani Silva has been under state protection for over a decade due to death threats tied to her defense of the Perla Amazónica Peasant Reserve. While protection measures have kept her alive, Silva describes them as isolating and burdensome, underscoring the inadequacy of current mechanisms.

Expanding Tactics of Repression

The report stresses that lethal attacks represent only the most visible form of violence. Defenders face a spectrum of threats including harassment, sexual violence, smear campaigns, and criminalization.

“Of particular concern is the rising trend of criminalization, as restrictive laws are increasingly enacted worldwide to make peaceful protest a crime,” Furones said.

She added that toxic anti-defender narratives, combined with Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs), further erode protections.

Authorities in several countries have adopted laws specifically targeting protestors, intensifying crackdowns on land and climate activists. “States are unwilling to protect those who stand up for rights,” Furones said. “Instead, they use the law as a weapon against them.”

A Global Failure of Protection
The report warns that international agreements designed to safeguard defenders are being weakened. Nearly 1,000 defenders have been killed in Latin America since the adoption of the Escazú Agreement in 2018, which was meant to ensure their protection.

Global Witness calls for urgent action from governments and businesses. States must recognize land rights, strengthen laws against corporate abuse, and build effective protection mechanisms. Companies must respect Free, Prior, and Informed Consent, conduct rigorous human rights due diligence, and adopt zero-tolerance policies for attacks on defenders.

Indigenous Peoples are identified as especially vulnerable, living across 90 countries and managing more than a third of Earth’s protected land. Research shows Indigenous and Afro-descendant communities achieve better conservation outcomes than many official protected zones. Yet they often defend their territories with little state support, while their voices are excluded from decision-making.

“Particular protection of Indigenous Peoples requires breaking the cycle of violence,” Furones said. “This means respecting their right to self-determination and ending impunity.”

She cited the recent sentencing of illegal loggers in Peru for the murder of four Indigenous Saweto leaders as a rare but important example of accountability. “It shows the judiciary can play a role, even if justice comes only after a long and painful wait.”

Protection Mechanisms: Lifelines With Limits

State protection measures for defenders vary widely, from providing bulletproof vests and security escorts to emergency relocations. However, most programs are designed for individuals, not communities, despite the collective nature of defenders’ work.

As the case of Jani Silva shows, these measures can protect lives but also isolate defenders from their communities and impose psychological costs. Global Witness calls for expanding and improving protection systems to meet collective needs.

The Road Ahead

The report concludes that defenders remain at the frontline of protecting ecosystems and confronting the climate crisis, yet are increasingly under siege. Without stronger protections and accountability, the risks they face will persist.

Furones stressed that breaking the cycle of violence requires political will, robust legal systems, and corporate responsibility. “Study after study shows Indigenous Peoples and Afro-descendant communities are the best guardians of forests and natural resources,” she said. “Protecting them is not just about human rights; it is also about protecting the planet.”

Furthermore, the Roots of Resistance report  has laid stress on the fact that  while governments and corporations profit from resource extraction, those who safeguard the environment pay with their lives. The global community now faces a choice and that is to strengthen protections and enforce accountability, or allow the cycle of violence to continue unchecked.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Indigenous People’s Celebration in Canada. Photo courtesy of Chrystal Tabobandung

By Randa El Ozeir
TORONTO, Sep 2 2025 (IPS)

If European colonialism had never happened in Canada, matriarchy would still have been strong in Indigenous culture. Matriarchy was the backbone of society’s structure and line of dominance in Turtle Island (North America) before the arrival of Westerners.

In practice, Indigenous women in Canada have been victims of violence and discrimination. In theory, they were supposed, along with children, to enjoy full protection, as the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) states in article 22.

“Traditional knowledge would be whole and complete. Our languages, ceremonies, governance systems, planet health, communities, cosmologies, land practices, water preservation, and harvesting practices would be alive and well,” says Anishinaabe Ancestral Knowledge Keeper Kim Wheatley, “Head/Leader of the Fireflower,” the Spirit name she carries.

The female role and influence in traditional Native American culture were powerful and pivotal. Wheatley cites how women’s main duty, “like all community members, was to live in harmony with creation, a life of committed purpose and passion based on the gifts they arrived with from the spirit world. Women were hunters, foragers, medicine folks, healers, educators, leaders, artists, fishers, ceremonialists, singers, dancers, artists, and governance holders—really the societal glue on how to provide for the greater good. They were the ones who made the big long-term decisions for the communities they were responsible for.”

Anishinaabe Ancestral Knowledge Keeper Kim Wheatley.

The story of Indigenous women in Canada is considerably incompatible with what Disney World tried to twist and distort in its popular animation “Pocahontas.” Chrystal Tabobandung, Founder of RAISE Indigenous cultural awareness and competence training with Ojibwe roots, sees the “hatred of white women towards us, as if we were less. We have been kicked out of our homes. We are suffering today and being sexualized by men and social media. Historically, white women envied us because of the roles we held in our communities and our traditional ways.”

This is where the impact of colonialism has come in, right from earlier contact, and changed over time. Women in Europe were not to be seen, not to be heard. They were in the background, and they were very resentful at the fact that, here, Indigenous women had a voice, a seat at the table to make decisions regarding safety, child rearing, politics, and even where to camp.”

Socio-Economic Inequality

The effect of the forced Western social and business model has shattered too many Indigenous communities, and the shift to a Western male-dominant lifestyle has altered the whole picture.

Wheatley believes that over the last 150 years, “The foundation of species became a risk. The destruction of lands and waters through endless resource extraction, racism, misogyny, the vulgarity of political decision-making on women’s bodies, the ever-rising violence against women and girls, and the list goes on and on. We see a dramatic disparity in the socio-economic realities. Our People have vast, complex political systems, governance structures, balanced leadership models, extraordinary, vibrant trade practices, endless creativity, and intimate relationships to lands and waters. Deep moral teachings that contribute to the greater good based on long-standing visioning practices.”

While women can and do run for leadership roles, the colonial system does not support traditional governance and practices. The Indian Act is still law in Canada and is one of the recognized leading racist legal documents in the world. This Act oversees how and what a First Nation community can do within reserve confines and what happens when you leave.”

Chrystal Tabobandung, Founder of RAISE Indigenous cultural awareness.

The differences among Indigenous women vary according to their distinct nations. In Canada, there are over 630 recognized First Nations communities.

“Our nations’ women do things differently based on nation-to-nation teachings that are tied to tradition and culture as opposed to roles,” explains Tabobandung. “There are so many divergent oppressive systems that disconnect them.

They do not necessarily work together, but regarding huge social issues, like murdered and missing Indigenous women and sex trafficking, they do come together. They are active in marches and rallies. They stand up against injustices and reconnect with their tradition and their culture. The more voices that are coming out, the more people feel courageous, strong, and able to come forth with their personal experiences.”

How does lack of access to safe drinking water affect Indigenous women? According to Wheatley, “The water crisis in First Nations communities is under-recognized as a continuous assault on a basic human right. Women who live off-reserve have greater opportunities for employment, housing, and other socio-economic possibilities that simply are not available on many reserves for a wide variety of reasons. Educational facilities are far more accessible, along with social services that are integral to supporting families.”

“The proximity of travel to/from work, social gatherings, support spaces, cultural activities, educational options, and greater social interactions are much more accessible in urban areas,” continues Wheatley. “This contributes to a greater sense of well-being. In small towns, racism may not support greater opportunities, but in cities with larger populations, the odds increase in a woman’s favor.”

Reconciliation and Preserving People’s Culture

In her opinion, Wheatley sees that the Truth and Reconciliation Report was a gift to Canadians, challenging their comfort in historic amnesia and continued ignorance of cultural genocide committed by the highest leadership in this country.

“Anytime we have a voice from ‘our people’ to say how we need to look at restitution and restoration of our sovereignty, it is the right path. We do not need to be told how to heal… We need to tell the country how to support our healing. This is what the report does beautifully. It is as comprehensive as the country can digest at this time and yet… few of the ‘calls to action’ have been addressed meaningfully to date.”

Ten years have passed, yet not much has changed, Wheatley adds.

“This country has continuously operated under the fallacy of the Doctrine of Discovery and theft of land that was never theirs to take.”

The Western Eurocentric perspective has been imposed even on terminology and on what an Indigenous person uses. Tabobandung says, “Only in the past couple of generations have we empowered our children to have voices and ask questions. I grew up in a smaller town where colonialism impacted us, but we were still able to carry down our teachings and our stories. People who have been removed from their culture or have become disconnected in any way wouldn’t know these teachings.”

In British Columbia, Indigenous people are knowledgeable about their culture.

“They really project the importance of their Indigenous women,” says Wheatley. “If there is any movement for any Indigenous or Aboriginal rights to change in the court system, it will take place in precedence in British Columbia and will set that precedent for all other nations across Canada.”

Is There a Way Out?

Wheatley believes the solution between the government and Indigenous people has not been prioritized. “

Hence, Third World conditions exist as a norm in many [Indigenous] communities. To reconcile the crimes of the past in Canada, the perpetrators need to take responsibility, but that continues to be a threat to colonial intrusion and imposition on lands that are rightfully ours!”

Everyone takes Reconciliation differently.

Tabobandung heard different voices; some people are more extreme than others. On the ground, the fait accompli is that Indigenous people, Westerners, and other immigrants are practically sharing their lives on Turtle Island.

Tabobandung finds herself in the middle

“You have this Western business, social, and political model, and your model. How would you balance this? Many First Nations people have had this difficulty, especially those who come from Northern rural, remote communities. You have to know who you are and have deep roots. It is really hard to make that transition, especially in the Western Eurocentric system, where they want to get rid of us; they want to integrate us into the Westernized society so that we don’t exist anymore. Some get to a point where they find peace and balance.”

“I am Anishinaabe. I am Ojibwe. I refuse to acknowledge myself as Indigenous, First Nation, or Aboriginal,” says Tabobandung. “Our people are older than the terminologies the federal government imposed upon us. I walk softly and gently upon the earth. Culture has saved me, knowing that I am First Peoples to this land, in this territory, and knowing that a system is trying to annihilate my people, and knowing that I am still here thriving and surviving.”

This is what motivates her.

“It is why I walk with my head held high. It is why I educate myself as much as I can on anything. I paint indigenous paintings and do indigenous art to pass that knowledge down.”

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

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:

The television and video recording studio of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty's Afghan service, Azadi Radio, in Prague, Czech Republic. Azadi Radio broadcasts to Afghanistan in Pashto and Dari languages. Credit: Bashir Ahmad Gwakh/IPS

By Bashir Ahmad Gwakh
PRAGUE, Aug 28 2025 (IPS)

Ahmad Siyar works in road construction in Balkh province. He wears a safety helmet to protect himself from debris constantly falling from the mountain where the road is being built. Once, he wore the same type of helmet for a very different reason. He was reporting from various parts of northern Afghanistan. Back then, his helmet bore the word “Journalist” in both Dari and English.

“We wore journalists’ helmets to protect ourselves and tell the warring sides that I am a journalist. It was a difficult but golden era. I loved reporting and being the voice of the people. But after the Taliban took over Afghanistan, the restrictions and financial problems became overwhelming, and I had to quit,” he said. “Now I work as a construction worker. It’s not an easy job, but I must do it, as I have no other option. I am the sole breadwinner of the family.”

Siyar, a father of three, is not the only journalist who has suffered under the Taliban regime. Since returning to power on August 15, 2021, the Taliban government has issued at least 21 directives regulating media activity through June 2025. These directives impose a wide range of restrictions, including a ban on women appearing on state-run television and radio, prohibitions on covering protests, and a ban on music.

These restrictions, along with the ongoing financial crisis and lack of funding, have led to the shutdown of 350 independent media outlets under Taliban rule. Before August 2021, there were over 600 independent media outlets in Afghanistan. According to data reviewed by IPS, these figures are based on weekly and monthly reports from organizations advocating for media freedom, such as the International Federation of Journalists, Reporters Without Borders, and the Committee to Protect Journalists.

“Four years after the Taliban takeover, Afghanistan’s once vibrant free press is a ghost of its former self. The situation of press freedom remains dire in Afghanistan, while exiled Afghan journalists face growing risks of arbitrary arrests, including those in Pakistan and Iran,” Beh Lih Yi, Regional Director, Asia-Pacific at CJP, told IPS.

Afghanistan’s largest independent news network, TOLOnews, had to let go of 25 journalists in June 2024. The layoffs followed an order from the Taliban to shut down certain programmes deemed “misleading” and “propaganda against the Taliban government,” according to a senior editor at TOLOnews. Fearing retaliation, the editor requested anonymity. “Beyond the constant stream of restrictive orders and lack of access to information, our funds are drying up. We can no longer have full and free news broadcasts to our people,” he added.

The Taliban have imposed strict rules on how women must dress and appear in the media. Women are barred from participating in plays and television entertainment. The Taliban have also prohibited interviews with opposition figures. Afghan media are no longer allowed to broadcast international television content. The release of films and TV series has been halted. Collaboration with media outlets in exile is also banned.

Yi believes these are the darkest days for media in Afghanistan. “Since the fall of Kabul, the Taliban have escalated a crackdown on the media in Afghanistan with censorship, assaults, arbitrary arrests, and restrictions on female journalists. The Taliban and its intelligence agency GDI continue to crack down on Afghan journalists on a daily basis,” she said.

Most Afghan women journalists have fled the country. Those who remain live in fear. Farida Habibi (not her real name), a journalist in Kabul, chose not to flee because she could not leave her disabled father behind. She now works in online media after the Taliban declared her on-air voice “un-Islamic”.

“We live in depression, to be honest. The environment is suffocating. I can’t go out freely, and my salary is very low,” she said.

The Taliban’s Ministry for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice has also banned the publication of images depicting living beings. Since the majority of these rules do not specify penalties, the Taliban forces use this ambiguity to punish journalists arbitrarily.

A 2024 report by the Afghanistan Journalists Centre (AFJC), an independent watchdog, documented 703 cases of human rights violations against media professionals between August 2021 and December 2024. These violations included arbitrary arrest and detention, torture, threats, and intimidation by Taliban forces.

Similarly, a 2024 report by the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) condemned the Taliban for “systematically dismantling the right to a free press.”

“Journalists and media workers in Afghanistan operate under vague rules, unsure of what they can or cannot report, and constantly risk intimidation and arbitrary detention for perceived criticism,” said Roza Otunbayeva, head of UNAMA. “For any country, a free press is not a choice but a necessity. What we are witnessing in Afghanistan is the systematic dismantling of that necessity.”

Meanwhile, the Taliban government denies any wrongdoing and claims it is committed to supporting journalists. Speaking to reporters in Kabul on July 2, Khabib Ghafran, a spokesperson for the Ministry of Information and Culture, said the Taliban support a free media but warned that “nobody can cross the Islamic red lines,” without providing further details. He added that the government is working on establishing a financial support fund for journalists.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

By Mandeep S.Tiwana
NEW YORK, Aug 2 2025 (IPS)

Successive United States governments have prided themselves on being governed by the Constitution of 1788. The First Amendment introduced in 1791 lays the foundations for secularism, respect for fundamental freedoms, and the right to seek redress of grievances.

Notably, presidential administrations since the Second World War and through the Cold War and even during the so-called ‘War on Terror’ have sought to model the United States as a beacon of democracy. They positioned the Constitution of the United States as a revered document that guarantees civic freedoms which enable people to come together freely, publicly express themselves, and organise to take action to advance their issues.

But today, that image is unravelling. The United States is on the CIVICUS Monitor July 2025 Watchlist along-with Kenya, El Salvador, Indonesia, Serbia, and Turkey. None of these countries are considered bastions of democracy. The CIVICUS Monitor is a civil society research collaboration that measures civic freedoms around the world. The reasons for including the United States in this list are as troubling as they are undeniable.

Protests Confronted with Military Might

The First Amendment guarantees the right of the people to assemble peaceably. Yet in June this year, President Trump personally threatened protestors and ordered the deployment of 700 Marines and 2,000 National Guard troops to Los Angeles. This was a blatant intimidation tactic to keep people from coming to the streets to protest violent and arbitrary implementation of immigration regulations by his administration.

Although, there were a few isolated incidents of violence during the demonstrations, most of the protests were peaceful. The actions of the Trump administration went against the advice of California’s Governor. Sending military personnel into city streets to silence dissent is a common tactic employed by despots. It’s something that takes place in authoritarian states ruled by dictators not celebrated democracies.

The administration has also violated due process rights of foreign-born student protest leaders and advocates speaking out for the realisation of fundamental freedoms and dignity of the Palestinian people in the face of Israeli occupation. Prominent cases include those of Mahmoud Khalil, Mohsen Mahdawi and Rumeysa Ozturk.

Press Freedom in Peril

The First Amendment also protects freedom of speech and of the press. American presidents however powerful have generally respected the role of the media to hold them accountable.

Today, journalists representing independent media outlets are routinely insulted and subjected to derogatory language by the White House press corps, the President and senior officials. Journalists covering protests have faced rubber bullets, arbitrary arrests, and legal intimidation. Salvadoran journalist, Mario Guevara, a legal resident of the United States was detained while livestreaming a peaceful protest. He was then arbitrarily transferred to immigration enforcement custody.

Meanwhile, the Trump Administration’s signature ‘One Big Beautiful Bill Act’ slashed $1.1 billion from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. This effectively defunds PBS, NPR, and independent local stations committed to non-partisan fact-based reporting. President Trump is also using lawsuits against media houses and entering into questionable settlements to silence criticism. These actions are not isolated; they’re part of a systematic effort to prevent media scrutiny and deny people the ability to form opinions based on truthful journalism.

Civil Society in the Crosshairs

The Constitution doesn’t specially mention nonprofits, but the US Supreme Court has declared that First Amendment rights enshrine freedom of association. That right is being eroded in insidious ways which are unprecedented in modern American history. Through the ages, non-profits have been an essential part of associational life in the United States. The “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” slashes billions in nonprofit funding over the next decade. The law guts support that civil society organisations render to some of the most excluded people and communities in the country.

The rapid dismantling of USAID democracy support programs around the world have strengthened the hands of authoritarian governments vehemently opposed to civil society groups that speak truth to power or uncover high level corruption. Robust civil society organisations are an essential component of democracy.

Democracy in Decline

The United States is currently rated as “narrowed” on the CIVICUS Monitor’s rating scale. It’s a designation for countries where civic freedoms exist in theory but aren’t fully upheld in practice. The loss of civility in public life, extreme political polarisation, military response to protests, attacks on journalism, and defunding of civil society are not just policy choices; they are breaches of well-established constitutional premises and the very promise of American democracy. These actions mock the sacrifices of revolutionaries, suffragettes, civil rights activists and civic minded individuals who laid the foundations for American democracy.

To be clear, today, the license to exercise civic freedoms remains uneven. While critics of the administration are being put under pressure, groups aligned to the Make America Great Again (MAGA) movement are having a free run. On its first day in office, the Trump Administration pardoned over 1500 violent protestors who were part of a mob that attacked police officers and sought to intimidate Members of Congress. They were convicted by the courts for storming the House of People in January 2021 with the aim of disrupting the peaceful transfer of power, which is the most American of traditions.

Picking who gets to exercise their constitutional rights does not behove a responsible administration. It erodes the very foundations of justice. The Constitution of the United States is a living document meant to safeguard the rights of all people, not just those close to power. When a government treats peaceful protest as rebellion, journalism as subversion, and civil society as a threat, it forfeits its claim to democratic leadership. The world is watching in dismay. And so are we.

Mandeep S. Tiwana is Secretary General of global civil society alliance, CIVICUS.

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

A young girl washes her hands in a puddle near a UN Organization Stabilization Mission in the DRC. Photo Credit: UN Photo/Sylvain Liechti

By Juliana White
UNITED NATIONS, Jul 21 2025 (IPS)

Electric vehicles contribute to an ongoing environmental and humanitarian crisis in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). Mining operations cause deforestation, pollution, food insecurity and exploitative labor practices.

Advertisers paint electric vehicles as an environmentally friendly option to help save the planet. In the West, American states like California and New York incentivize citizens to go green and help their cities by ditching gas-powered vehicles.

California officials are trying to enact legislation to reach 100 percent zero-emission vehicle sales by 2035. Across the country in New York, officials implemented the Drive Clean Rebate. Through this program, New Yorkers can receive up to 2,000 USD off the purchase or lease of an electric vehicle.

Governments are pushing for more electric vehicle sales because they are helping reduce the damage inflicted by fossil fuels. In the United States, emissions have reduced by around 66 percent. In China, a country dominating the electric vehicle production and sales market, emissions have been reduced by an estimated range of 37 percent to 45 percent.

However, consumers must understand that electric vehicles primarily benefit the environment in wealthier regions. Rising demands for electric vehicles and lithium-ion batteries foster destruction and exploitation in poorer countries like the DRC.

One of the key minerals used to make lithium-ion batteries is cobalt. The DRC is the world’s top producer of mined cobalt, at a staggering 75 percent. To fulfill high demands for the mineral, the DRC has become a hot spot overrun by industrial and artisanal small-scale mining operations.

“The surge in demand for lithium-ion batteries has dramatically increased global demand for cobalt, and DRC cobalt production is projected to double by 2030,” said the International Labor Organization (ILO) to IPS. “Because industrial mines can’t keep pace, this has encouraged expansion of artisanal and unregulated mining.”

Artisanal small-scale mines are poorly regulated, informal operations for extracting minerals. Located all over the DRC, these mines exploit child labor, use basic handheld tools, and disregard safety protocols.

“ASM can also lead to conflict as clashes take place between traditional licensed large-scale mining operations and ASM over access to minerals,” Dr. Lamfu Yengong, the Forest campaigner for Greenpeace Africa, told IPS. “While statistics on the actual number of ASM miners in SSA are hard to find, it is estimated that in the DRC alone, there are between 200,000 and 250,000 ASM miners who are responsible for mining as much as 25 percent of the DRC’s cobalt.”

The growth of mining is also decimating the DRC’s environment. Mining sites need large areas of land to operate. As laborers dig, open pits form, releasing dust and other toxic chemicals into the air and polluting surrounding waterways.

Cobalt mines often contain sulfur minerals, which can create acid mine drainage. This process occurs when sulfur minerals are exposed to both air and water.

Sulfuric acid is incredibly harmful because it can make water unsafe for human consumption, kill aquatic life and produce algal blooms. Contact with the acid causes skin irritation and burns, and respiratory issues, and long-term exposure increases the risk of cancer.

Deforestation, erosion, contaminated soil and water sources, increased noise levels and dust and smoke emissions from mining pursuits disrupt the lives of Congolese locals and wildlife. Many are killed or forced to relocate as land, once prosperous for life, now nourishes profit-fueled exploits.

“Mining in the DRC is tearing through the heart of the Congo Basin, one of the world’s most important carbon sinks, leaving behind poisoned rivers, deforested landscapes, and devastated ecosystems,” Yengong said. “What once were lush forests are now scarred by unregulated extraction, threatening biodiversity, accelerating climate change, and robbing future generations of their environmental heritage.”

Despite having over 197 million acres of arable land, the DRC is one of the top-ranking areas of food insecurity globally. Over 25 million Congolese people suffer from a lack of access to food.

Mining endeavors only fuel the hunger crisis because contaminants in the soil and water make growing crops difficult. Forest resources also disappear as more land is cleared for new mines.

Alongside food insecurity impacted by pollution, agriculture efforts suffer from climate change. Weather patterns have drastically changed across the globe, making rain patterns unpredictable. A heavy reliance on rainfed agriculture and prolonged droughts in the DRC immensely impact food supplies.

One of the many camps in the DRC for people displaced by conflict and environmental devastation. Credit: UN Photo/Sylvain Liechti

The pursuit of minerals for lithium-ion batteries encourages mass destruction and egregious human rights violations in the DRC. But mining operations cannot simply stop to solve the problem. Many Congolese people rely on working in the mines to support their families.

Groups such as the ILO, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), and the World Food Programme (WFP) are actively working on sustainable solutions to stop further exploitation and harm to the DRC.

“To improve the health of workers in or near mine sites, the ILO is supporting the roll-out of the universal health insurance scheme (Couverture Santé Universelle—CSU), which aims to provide coverage for all individuals in DRC, including those working in the mining sector and their families,” the ILO said. “The benefit package will include a range of services such as general and specialist consultations, hospitalization, essential medicines and vaccines, medical procedures and exams, maternity and newborn care, palliative care, and patient transfers between facilities.”

The UNEP is forming plans focusing on minimizing the environmental impacts of mining. Working with the DRC’s government

“UNEP is working with the DRC’s government to develop a national plan for the extraction of minerals like cobalt. The plan would focus on minimizing the environmental impact of mining,” said Corey Pattison in a UNEP press release. “We are also exploring whether local and international institutions can help resolve conflict around mineral extraction, including through processes like revenue sharing and dispute resolution.”

The WFP is trying to ease the problem by investing in resilience programs. Activities are created to build skills in communities to improve long-term food security. Skill building includes educating farmers in post-harvest loss management, literacy, business and collective marketing.

They also work closely with the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) to limit negative environmental impacts. Reforestation initiatives are actively underway across the DRC. The WFP reported that 3,850 women in North and South Ubangi planted tree seedlings in 2022.

The crisis in the DRC should not mark the end of lithium batteries and electric vehicles. Scientists are working on new solutions for cleaner, more efficient power sources. Some new batteries in the works include sodium-ion batteries, silicon-carbon batteries, and lithium-sulfur batteries. Introducing more power sources could limit the overwhelming strain on resources in the DRC as the need for cobalt would reduce.

A report released by the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) suggests that sustainable mining techniques and technologies are another tactic to reduce environmental impacts. However, significant change relies on the DRC’s government and its officials. They must enforce stricter mandates to mitigate the harm ravaging Congolese people’s lives.

The ILO says that Corporate Social Responsibility has been made mandatory through the 2018 mining code. Mining companies are required to invest .3 percent of their annual turnover into community development projects.

In turn, the mandate allows for easy tracking of mining companies’ income through transparency mechanisms like the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI).

While the DRC has enacted environmental regulations and is involved in additional support programs, its history of weak institutions and conflict challenges aid efforts. Rampant instability greatly limits the implementation and enforcement of policies.

“The world’s clean energy transition must not come at the cost of Congolese lives and forests. The critical minerals beneath the DRC fuel the global economy, yet the people above them remain among the poorest and most exploited,” said Yengong. “Real climate solutions must prioritize the rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities, end greenwashing, and ensure justice, not just extraction.”

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Protestors march down Valletta's Republic Street on the first anniversary of Daphne's assassination. Credit: Miguela Xuereb/Daphne Caruana Galizia Foundation

By Ed Holt
BRATISLAVA, Jun 16 2025 (IPS)

“We didn’t want revenge. We want justice—justice for Daphne and for the [crimes exposed in] her stories.”

Corinne Vella, sister of murdered Maltese journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia, is speaking to IPS soon after the sentencing of two men to life imprisonment for their involvement in the killing.

She explains that while the long sentences are an important step forward in her family’s pursuit of justice for her sister, they have wider ramifications for press freedom too.

“These sentences are a step towards that justice, but also a step towards making a safer world for journalists,” she says.

Caruana Galizia, Malta’s most prominent investigative journalist, was killed by a car bomb in October 2017 outside her home in the village of Bidnija.

Her murder made headlines around the world, focusing attention on the rule of law in Malta, as well as highlighting the murky links between Maltese politicians and big business—her investigations had exposed high-level government corruption linked to companies.

It also highlighted issues around the safety of journalists. A public inquiry held in the wake of the killing delivered a damning verdict of the state’s role in her murder and pointed to institutional failures to protect Caruana Galizia.

The inquiry’s findings, released in a 457-page report in 2021, were that her death had been preventable and that responsibility lay with the state for creating “an atmosphere of impunity… which led to the collapse of the rule of law.”

The report said, “…acts, certainly illicit if not illegal, were committed by persons within State entities that created an environment that facilitated the assassination. This even by failing to do their duty to act promptly and effectively to give proper protection to the journalist.”

Four years on from the publication of that report, Caruana Galizia’s family believes that the life sentences handed down on June 10 to local crime gang members Robert Agius and Jamie Vella, who were found guilty of complicity in the murder by supplying the bomb that killed her, have sent a powerful message.

“We believe the sentences will have a deterrent effect, telling potential killers that there are serious consequences when a journalist is murdered. The sentences have sent out shockwaves already. People literally thought they could get away with murder, and this has shown that they can’t,” Corinne Vella says.

She points out that the significance of the sentences for press freedom reaches well beyond just Malta.

Since the death of Caruana Galizia, other journalists investigating alleged corruption linked to high-level political figures have been killed in Europe, and press freedom groups have said it is imperative state institutions, including the judiciary, are seen as being able to not just protect journalists but bring to justice those behind killings to show they cannot act with impunity.

“The fight against impunity for the murder of journalists in Europe and around the world is fundamental to the wider climate for the safety of journalists,” Jamie Wiseman, Europe Advocacy Officer at the United International Press Institute (IPI), told IPS.

“Convictions like these send an important signal that those who carry out such assassinations will not escape accountability. So these sentences are another big step forward in the push towards full justice and emblematic of media freedom in Europe more widely,” he added.

However, despite the sentences, both Corinne Vella and press freedom groups remain concerned that the failings they say led to Caruana Galizia’s death have not been dealt with.

“Daphne’s murder did not take place in a vacuum. The murder of a journalist for their work happens because of failures in the system that happen before that person has been murdered. And the circumstances that led to Daphne’s murder have not been addressed. The whole post-inquiry history has been one of a lack of urgency and reluctance to respond to the problems identified in that inquiry,” said Corinne Vella.

Media freedom organization Reporters Without Borders (RSF) said the convictions of Agius and Vella mark progress in the quest for justice for Caruana Galizia.

But they pointed out the alleged mastermind behind the killing has yet to be brought to trial, and the majority of recommendations on journalist safety and press freedom that emerged from the public inquiry—including, among others, detailed legal and procedural proposals to bolster protection of journalists and journalism’s role in protecting democracy and helping ensure the rule of law—have yet to be implemented.

RSF says it is now essential that Maltese authorities ramp up efforts to do both.

Pavol Szalai, Head of the European Union-Balkans Desk at RSF, told IPS the sentences of Agius and Vella would act as a deterrent to other potential journalist killers but that “the biggest deterrent would be a timely conviction and long sentence for the mastermind of the killings.”

“Globally there is a clear pattern of the masterminds of such killings escaping justice while the middleman and hitmen are convicted. So it’s vital that we keep pushing and ensure the mastermind behind Daphne’s assassination is put behind bars. The Maltese government must also fully implement the recommendations of the Public Inquiry into Daphne’s murder, which would help tackle the culture of impunity in Malta that created an environment in which a leading journalist could be murdered in an EU member state,” added Wiseman.

Meanwhile, Caruana Galizia’s family continues to pursue justice for her.

Prior to the convictions of Agius and Vella, three other men were already serving sentences for installing and detonating the bomb in Caruana Galizia’s vehicle: brothers Alfred and George Degiorgio, sentenced to 40 years in prison, and Vincent Muscat, who negotiated a reduced sentence of 15 years in exchange for testimony, which was seen as key in the trial of Agius and Vella.

Another man, Melvin Theuma, the middleman in the murder, was granted a pardon in exchange for information on the suspected mastermind, businessman Yorgen Fenech.

Fenech, who was charged with complicity in Caruana Galizia’s murder in 2019 but released on bail in February this year, is awaiting trial.

“The convictions and sentencing [of Agius and Vella] are a step closer to justice for Daphne. But it’s not over yet,” said Vella.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

An amendment to Hungary’s constitution includes the banning and criminalisation of Pride marches and their organisers. Credit: Sara Rampazzo/Unsplash

By Ed Holt
BRATISLAVA, May 13 2025 (IPS)

A controversial amendment to Hungary’s constitution has left the country’s LGBTQI community both defiant and fearful, rights groups have said.

The amendment, passed by parliament on April 14, includes, among others, the banning and criminalisation of Pride marches and their organisers, with penalties including large fines and, in certain cases, imprisonment.

It also allows for the use of real-time facial recognition technologies for the identification of protestors.

It has been condemned by domestic and international rights groups and members of the European Parliament (MEPs) as an assault on not just the LGBTQI community but wider human rights.

And there are now fears it will lead to a rise in violence against LGBTQI people whose rights have been gradually eroded in recent years under populist prime minister Viktor Orban’s authoritarian regime.

“There is serious concern that this legislative package could lead to an increase in threats, harassment, and violence against LGBTI communities in Hungary. When authorities criminalise Pride organisers and create a chilling effect on peaceful assembly, it not only emboldens hostile rhetoric but also signals impunity for those who wish to intimidate or harm LGBTI people,” Katja Štefanec Gärtner, Communications and Media Officer, ILGA-Europe, told IPS.

“The risks are not theoretical. Pride marches have long been a target for extremist groups, and this legal crackdown sends a dangerous message: that state institutions may no longer protect those marching but instead criminalise them. This creates an unsafe and unpredictable environment for all those standing up for human rights and democratic freedoms,” she added.

The amendment codifies legislation already passed in March banning LGBTQI events. It was met with widespread outrage in the LGBTQI community in Hungary. But there was also defiance, with Pride organisers insisting the event would go ahead.

Budapest’s mayor, Gergely Karácsony, also backed the organisers, pledging last month to help them find a way to hold the event despite the new legislation.

But while LGBTQI activists have said they will not give in to the new law, groups working with the community say some LGBTQI people have been shaken by the legislation.

“Depending on who you speak to, the mood now among the LGBTQI community is one of fear and worry or defiance,” Luca Dudits, press spokesperson for the Hatter Society, one of Hungary’s largest LGBTQI NGOs, told IPS.

“We will see how the new provisions [in the amendment] will affect the lives of LGBTQI people in the upcoming months, especially in June, which is Pride month, with the march taking place on the 28^th,” she added, noting that after legislation was passed in 2021 banning the depiction and promotion of “diverse gender identities and sexual orientations” to under 18s, there had been  “a wave of violence and discrimination against LGBTQI people”.

“I’m hoping this will not be the case this time. A lot of people have expressed their solidarity and said that they will attend the Pride March for the first time because of this shameful constitutional amendment,” Dudits said.

Outside Hungary, organisations and politicians have also raised the alarm over the legislation.

In a letter sent to the European Commission (EC) on April 16, dozens of LGBTQI and human rights organisations demanded the EC take immediate action to ensure the event can go ahead and that people can safely attend.

They said the ban on LGBTQI events was an attack on EU fundamental rights of freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of expression and that its provisions marked a significant infringement on privacy and personal freedoms protected under EU law.

Meanwhile, MEPs among a delegation which visited Hungary from April 14-16 attacked the ban and said they were calling on the EC to request the European Court of Justice to suspend the law pending further legal action.

One of the MEPs, Krzysztof Smiszek, of the Polish New Left, said the new law had led to a rise in violent attacks and hate crimes against the LGBTQI community in Hungary.

The government has defended the amendment, with Orban saying after the vote in parliament that it was designed to “protect children’s development, affirming that a person is born either male or female, and standing firm against drugs and foreign interference”.

The amendment also declares that children’s rights take precedence over any other fundamental right (except the right to life) and codifies in the Constitution the recognition of only two sexes – male and female – essentially denying transgender and intersex identities.

It also allows for the suspension of Hungarian citizenship for some dual nationals if they are deemed to pose a threat to Hungary’s security or sovereignty.

Many observers see the ban and the other measures included in the amendment as part of a wider attempt by Orban’s regime to suppress dissent and weaken rights protections as it looks to consolidate its grip on power by scapegoating parts of the population, including not just LGBTQI people but migrants and civil society groups, to appeal to conservative voters.

“Authoritarian governments around the world have discovered a playbook for keeping in power – it involves vilifying certain communities. That’s the logic behind attacks on LGBTQI communities and that’s what’s behind this. I don’t think Orban cares one way or the other about LGBT people; it’s just that they are an easy target,” Neela Ghoshal, Senior Director of Law, Policy, and Research at LGBTQI group Outright International, told IPS.

“Once you prohibit one form of protest or dissent, it becomes easier to prohibit all forms of dissent. I really do think Orban wants to prohibit all forms of dissent. He is seeking absolute power; he is not interested in the traditional architecture of democracy, i.e., checks and balances and accountability,” she added.

Dudits also pointed out the absurdity of the reasoning behind the government’s defence of the amendment.

“It is true that a large majority of society are either male or female. However, there are some people who have sex characteristics (chromosomes, hormones, external and internal sex organs, and body structure) that are common to both sexes. Intersex conditions occur in many different forms and cover a wide range of health conditions. The amendment is therefore even scientifically unsound, contradicting the very biological reality that it claims to be defending so belligerently,” she said.

If picking up voter support is behind the regime’s attacks on its perceived critics, it is unclear to what extent this policy is working.

Parliamentary elections are due to be held in Hungary in April next year and current polls put Orban’s Fidesz party – which has been in power since 2010 – behind the main opposition party, Tisza, amid voter concerns about a struggling economy, a crumbling healthcare system, and alleged government corruption.

Meanwhile, although some MEPs have publicly condemned the amendment, since the parliamentary vote the EC has said only that it needs to analyse the legislative changes to see if they fall foul of EU law but would not hesitate to act if necessary.

Rights groups say EU bodies must take action or risk allowing even greater curbs on freedoms in Hungary under Orban.

“From scapegoating LGBT people to suspending Hungarian citizenship of dual citizens, the Hungarian government is cementing a legal framework that is hostile to the rule of law, equality, and democracy in blatant violation of EU law,” Hugh Williamson, Europe and Central Asia director at Human Rights Watch, said in a press release.

“Orban has shown once more his willingness to trample rights and shred protections, and there is no reason to think he won’t continue on this authoritarian path. EU institutions and member states should stand in solidarity with those in Hungary upholding EU values and do everything they can to halt the downward spiral toward authoritarianism,” he added.

Ghoshal said, though, that whatever happens, the LGBTQI community in Hungary would not give up their rights.

“The community has been through cycles of oppression and freedom. The younger members might not be able to remember it, but older members of the community will know what it is like to live under an authoritarian regime; it is in the country’s history. They have also had a taste of freedom too and they will not want to give that up.

“I think there will be a Pride march and I think there could be state violence and arrests there, but the community will remain defiant no matter what,” she said.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Without proper governance and input from multiple stakeholders artificial intelligence poses risks to freedom of expression and elections. Credit: Unsplash/Element5 Digital

By Naureen Hossain
UNITED NATIONS, May 7 2025 (IPS)

The prevalence of artificial intelligence (AI) is changing the flow and access of information, which has a wider influence on how freedom of expression is affected. National and local elections can demonstrate the particular strengths and vulnerabilities that can be exploited as AI is used to influence voters and political campaigns. As people grow more critical of institutions and the information they receive, governments and tech companies must exercise their responsibility to protect freedom of expression during elections.

This year’s World Press Freedom Day (May 3) focused on AI’s effect on press freedom, the free flow of information, and how to ensure access to information and fundamental freedoms. AI brings the risk of spreading misinformation or disinformation and spreading online hate speech. In elections, this can violate free speech and privacy rights.

In a parallel event hosted in the context of the World Press Freedom Global Conference 2025. The event also coincided with the launch of a new issue brief from the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) detailing the growing influence of AI and the potential risks—and opportunities—to freedom of expression during elections.

Recommender algorithms that determine what a user sees and interacts with when it comes to information can have wider implications on the information that that user has access to during an election cycle, according to Pedro Conceição, UNDP Director of the Human Development Report Office.

“I think we need the humility to recognize that they are so complex and they have this element of novelty that requires us to bring together perspectives from across a range of stakeholders,” said Conceição.

Freedom of expression is essential for elections to be run in a credible, transparent environment. Fostering this freedom and access to information allows for public engagement and discourse. Countries are obligated under international law to respect and protect the freedom of expression. During elections, this responsibility can become challenging. How this responsibility is handled across state authorities varies between countries. The increased investments in AI have allowed for actors in the electoral process to make use of this technology.

Electoral management bodies are responsible for informing citizens on how to participate in elections. They may rely on AI to disseminate the information more readily through social media platforms. AI can also help with the implementation of strategic information strategies and public awareness efforts, as well as online analysis and research.

Social media and other digital platforms have been visibly employing generative AI as their parent companies experiment with how it can be integrated into their services. They are also employing it in content moderation. However, there has been an emphasis on increasing platform engagement and retention, at the risk of compromising information integrity. Young people in particular increasingly use social media as their main source of information, according to Cooper Gatewood, Senior Research Manager focusing on mis/disinformation at BBC Media Action.

“Audiences are aware of and understanding of the quantity of false information circulating at the moment,” said Gatewood. He discussed the findings of surveys conducted in Indonesia, Tunisia, and Libya, where 83, 39, and 35 percent of respondents,  reported concerns with coming across misinformation or disinformation on a regular basis. Conversely, there was a “parallel trend” emerging in reports from Tunisia and Nepal that many users agreed that it was more important for information to be spread quickly than for it to be fact-checked.

“So this clearly demonstrates that AI-generated disinformation, especially in situations like elections, humanitarian contexts, crisis situations… where information can be spotty, or difficult to access, or move quite quickly… [the] false information that is shared quickly by audiences can very quickly have an impact and can produce a harm,” Gatewood warned.

Within the context of freedom of expression and elections, AI poses several risks to their integrity. For one, technological capabilities vary across the gamut among countries. Developing countries with a smaller tech infrastructure are less likely to have the tools to make use of AI or to deal with the issues that emerge. The frameworks on governing digital spaces and AI in particular would also affect how effectively countries can regulate them.

Frameworks outlined in documents such as UNESCO’s Guidelines for the Governance of Digital Platforms (2023) and their recommendations on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence (2021) provide stakeholders with insight into their responsibilities in protecting freedom of expression and information in the governance process. They also provide policy recommendations around data governance, ecosystems, and the environment, among other areas, based on the core need to protect human rights and dignity.

As Albertina Piterbarg, a UNESCO Electoral Project Officer in the Freedom of Expression and the Safety of Journalists Section, remarked at the panel, the organization found early on that it was “increasingly complex” to address digital information in only a “black-and-white” way. What they realized was that it was important to “create a multi-stakeholder approach” in dealing with digital technology and AI. This meant working with multiple stakeholders, such as governments, tech companies, private investors, academia, the media, and civil society, to build up a “common understanding” of the impacts of AI through capacity-building, for example.

“We need to address this in a human rights-based approach. We need to address this in an egalitarian way. And in every election, every democracy is important. It doesn’t matter the commercial impact or other private interests,” said Piterbarg.

Pamela Figueroa, President of the Board of Directors of the Electoral Service of Chile, spoke at the panel on her country’s experiences with AI during the electoral process, notably the risk of “information pollution.” She warned that the deluge of information thanks to AI could “generate asymmetry in the political participation,” which can in turn affect the level of trust in institutions and the whole electoral process itself.

Information has become increasingly complex in the digital age, and AI has only added to that complexity. While people are increasingly aware of the presence of AI. AI-generated content, namely “deepfakes,” is being used to undermine the political process and discredit political candidates, and the technology to create deepfakes is unfortunately easily accessible to the public.

It has been proven that AI models are not immune from human biases and discrimination, and this can be reflected in their outputs. AI has also been used in spreading gender discrimination through harassment and cyberstalking. Women politicians are more likely to be victims of deepfakes depicting them in sexualized contexts. When used in social media, gender discrimination and harassment can discourage women from political participation and public debate during elections.

With that said, AI also presents opportunities for freedom of expression. The brief points out that a multi-stakeholder approach is needed to address the specific needs for information integrity in the face of AI. Ensuring trust in the electoral process is more important than ever. State authors can achieve this through effective and reliable strategic communications campaigns, with the support of other stakeholders such as the media, civil society, and tech companies. Media and information literacy must be further cultivated to navigate the complex information spaces, with investments in both long-term and short-term interventions targeting youths and adults.

Digital platforms also have the responsibility to implement safeguards on AI and ensure protections in election-specific contexts. The brief outlines certain measures that can be taken, including investing in adequate content moderation for election needs; prioritizing the public good in how algorithms recommend electoral information; conducting and publishing risk assessments; promoting high-quality and accurate electoral information; and consulting civil society and electoral management bodies.

What this demonstrates is that the dynamics between AI, freedom of expression, and elections require multi-stakeholder approaches. Shared understanding and structured methods will be critical in conducting elections in a fast-moving environment, and the insights drawn from this specific context can provide strategies for how to cultivate AI’s broader potential for humanity. This must be taken into account when we consider that modern generative AI technology has been made more accessible and mainstream in the last two years and has already resulted in transformations across multiple sectors.

“We’ve taken these AI tools and they’re basically in everyone’s phone, And… to some extent it’s free,” said Ajay Patel, Technology and Election Expert, UNDP and the author of the issue brief. “So, where is that going to lead? What happens? What kind of innovation is going to be unleashed? For good? Sometimes for ill, when everyone has access to this sort of powerful flat technology?”

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Sea of red indicates the parlous state of press freedom in the world. Credit: Reporters Without Borders

By Ed Holt
BRATISLAVA, May 2 2025 (IPS)

Global press freedom across the world is at a “critical moment,” campaigners have warned, as a major index mapping the state of global press freedom hits an unprecedented low.

In the latest edition of the annual press freedom index produced by Reporters Without Borders (RSF), which was published on May 2, the average score of all assessed countries fell below 55 points, falling into the category of a “difficult situation” for the first time in the index’s history.

More than six out of ten countries (112 in total) saw their overall scores decline in the index, while the conditions for practicing journalism are for the first time classified as poor in half of the world’s countries and satisfactory in fewer than one in four.

In 42 countries—harboring over half of the world’s population (56.7 percent)—the situation is “very serious,” according to the group. In these zones, press freedom is entirely absent and practicing journalism is particularly dangerous.

RSF says that while there has been a downward trend in press freedom globally for some time, the latest index scores are a distressing “new low.”

“Our index has been warning of this for the last ten years—the trajectory for press freedom has been a downward one—but this is a new low. Sixty percent of countries saw their scores [in the index] drop last year and the environment for media freedom globally has worsened. We are now at a critical moment for press freedom globally,” Fiona O’Brien, UK Bureau Director for RSF, told IPS.

Experts and campaigners have in recent years warned of growing threats to press freedom amid a rise of authoritarian regimes looking to muzzle dissent, as well as  growing economic pressures affecting the ability of independent media outlets to function.

RSF’s index is compiled using measurements of five different indicators—political context, legal framework, economic context, sociocultural context, and safety—to form an overall score. It says that this year the overall global index score was dragged down by the performance of the economic index.

It says that economic pressure is an often underestimated but major factor seriously weakening media in many countries. This pressure is being largely driven by ownership concentration, pressure from advertisers and financial backers, and public aid that is restricted, absent, or allocated non-transparently.

The group warns this is leaving many media trapped between preserving their editorial independence and ensuring their economic survival.

“The pressure on media sustainability is as bad as it has ever been,” said O’Brien.

The effects of this economic pressure have been severe. Data collected for the index indicates that in 160 out of the 180 countries assessed (88.9 percent), media outlets achieve financial stability “with difficulty” or “not at all.” Meanwhile, news outlets are shutting down due to economic hardship in nearly a third of countries globally.

While the struggles of media economies in some countries have been exacerbated by political instability, general lack of resources, and war, media in other rich, ostensibly more stable countries are also facing significant economic pressures.

RSF points out that in the US, a majority of journalists and media experts told the group that “the average media outlet struggles for economic viability.”

Meanwhile, independent media that rely heavily or exclusively on foreign funding have come under increasing pressure.

A freeze on funding for the US Agency for International Development (USAID), which halted US international aid earlier this year plunged hundreds of news outlets in different countries around the world into economic uncertainty or forced others to close.

This was particularly acute in Ukraine, where nine out of ten outlets receive international aid and USAID is the primary donor.

“The US cuts have had a profound effect there,” Jeanne Cavalier, head of RSF’s Eastern Europe and Central Asia desk, told IPS. “Independent media is vital in any country that is at war. It’s a real blow to press freedom in the country,” she said.

She added, though, that the cuts to US funding were “an existential threat to press freedom in all countries with authoritarian governments under Russian influence,” highlighting that exiled media in particular provide a vital service to people living under such regimes.

The Meduza news outlet is one of the most prominent exiled Russian media organizations. While more than half of its financing comes through crowdfunding, until earlier this year a part of its funding came via US grants.

The group said that the combined impact of the cut and previous financial problems presented a significant challenge to its operations. It was forced to cut its workforce by 15 percent and salaries were reduced.

Speaking to IPS at the time, Katerina Abramova, Head of Communications at Meduza, said the moves would “influence the diversity of our content.” But speaking this week after the release of RSF’s index, she said the group had managed to continue its work but admitted, “it is even more challenging now.”

“Our main goal is to maintain the quality of our reporting and to keep delivering news inside Russia,” she said.

However, she said she was concerned for the future of other organizations like Meduza as press freedom and the economic health of independent media wane globally.

“I hope that there will not be a complete loss of independent reporting on countries where free speech has become illegal. But I know that many independent newsrooms are suffering and are on the edge of closing. When you are in exile, you are in a vulnerable position, so such newsrooms face the most difficult challenges,” she told IPS.

“I am also worried that the USAID cuts may be seen as a ‘good sign’ for many authoritarian regimes around the world. They might say, ‘look, the USA also doesn’t like journalists anymore.’ It would be like a validation of what they are doing to independent media [in their own countries],” she added.

Meanwhile, other organizations have also raised the alarm over growing threats to press freedom, even in countries regarded as among the strongest democracies in the world.

While in the RSF index the European Union (EU)-Balkans zone had the highest overall score globally, and its gap with the rest of the world continued to grow, a report released this week by the Civil Liberties Union for Europe (Liberties) group highlighted how some EU governments were attacking press freedom and undermining independent media.

The report, based on the work of 43 human rights groups from 21 countries, warned that press freedom was being eroded across the bloc. It said EU media markets “feature high media ownership concentration, with these owners remaining obscured behind inadequate ownership transparency obligations, the continued erosion of public service media’s independence, ongoing threats and intimidation against journalists, and restrictions on freedom of expression and access to information.”

“The findings of this report should put EU officials on high alert: media freedom and pluralism are under attack across the EU, and in some cases they are in an existential battle against overtly undemocratic governments,” according to the group.

Liberties also warned that “EU legislation to bolster media freedom is being greeted with hostility, making enforcement efforts in 2025 and beyond decisive in protecting the free and plural media that European democracy depends on.”

However, it is this legislation, including the European Media Freedom Act (EMFA), which is designed to guarantee the protection of journalists and sources, independence of regulatory bodies and full ownership transparency, and the Anti-SLAPP Directive (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) to protect journalists and human rights advocates from abusive legal proceedings, that experts see as providing hope that some of the threats to media freedom can be dealt with.

“At the individual country level within the EU, there are some problems. Where there has been a recent change in government away from authoritarianism, there has been some positive progress, e.g., in Poland. But in other countries, like Slovakia, we are seeing the reverse,” Eva Simon, Senior Advocacy Officer at Liberties, told IPS.

“But at the EU level, we see positive prospects for media freedom in new legislation. The EU Media Act is coming into force soon and the anti-SLAPP directive will come into effect next year.

“The EU has the power to intervene in countries where there are persistent problems and we have high hopes that the EU will use its powers to enforce the European Media Freedom Act. The EU has more tools than ever at its disposal to ensure media freedom in member states,” she added.

On April 30, the Committee for the Protection of Journalists (CPJ) issued a damning report on how, since the start of US President Donald Trump’s second term in January, press freedom has come under attack.

The report warned that press freedom is no longer a given in the United States as journalists and newsrooms face mounting pressures that threaten both their ability to report freely and the public’s right to know.

It said the executive branch of the government was taking “unprecedented steps to permanently undermine press freedom” through restricting access for some news organizations, increasingly using government and regulatory bodies against media, and launching targeted attacks on journalists and newsrooms.

In a statement, CPJ CEO Jodie Ginsberg said, “This is a definitive moment for U.S. media and the public’s right to be informed. Whether at the federal or state level, the investigations, hearings, and verbal attacks amount to an environment where the media’s ability to bear witness to government action is already curtailed.”

The current threats to press freedom in the US are among the most worrying anywhere, many media experts say.

“There is a head-on attack on media freedom in the US. If you look at the scores for the US [in the index], the social indicator has dropped hugely, which shows that within the US the press is operating in a hostile environment. The economic situation there has deteriorated too, which makes things difficult for them,” said O’Brien.

“But also, a lot of people look to America as a bastion of press freedom, with its constitution’s First Amendment, and what is happening there to independent media is an absolute gift to authoritarian rulers around the world. If the rest of the world just sits back and watches this and lets press freedom be restricted and attacked and does nothing, other regimes will look and just think, ‘oh, it’s OK to do this.'”

“World leaders have to now stand up for press freedom. Independent journalism is fundamental to democratic societies,” she added.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Flashback to 2020 protests against a rigged election. Credit: Andrew Keymaster/Unsplash

By Ed Holt
BRATISLAVA, Feb 10 2025 (IPS)

In the months leading up to presidential elections at the end of January, Belarus’s authoritarian leader Alexander Lukashenko ordered the release of hundreds of political prisoners. Some observers saw this as a sign that the man who had led the former Soviet state for the last three decades could be planning a relaxation of his regime’s brutal repressions in return for a lessening of Western sanctions.

But having secured an inevitable further term in office, human rights groups and Belarusians who have survived persecution under his regime say they see no signs he is preparing to loosen his iron grip on the state.

“If we have learned anything from the last four years, it is that repression in Belarus is not lessening, despite the fact that Lukashenko has everything under his power. There are no protests, people have been forced into exile, there are no legal ways for rights groups to do their work, yet the repression continues,” Anastasiia Kruope, Assistant Researcher, Europe and Central Asia, at Human Rights Watch (HRW), told IPS.

In August 2020, hundreds of thousands of people took to the streets in Belarus to protest against what they saw as the rigged result of an election which had just returned Lukashenko, who has ruled the country since 1994, to power.

Security forces launched a violent crackdown on those involved. Over the next six months, tens of thousands were detained and at least 11 people were killed.

Although the protests eventually stopped, repression has continued, with any form of dissent severely punished. There have been mass arrests, imprisonment, and torture for those deemed to be opposing the regime, while secret police and party loyalists have been installed in institutions as official ideological gatekeepers to ensure people toe the government line.

Independent media has been muzzled—almost 400 journalists have been arrested in the last four years—and much of the NGO sector has been effectively shuttered through repressive legislation on foreign funding and authorities’ misuse of anti-terror and anti-extremism laws. The closures of these groups have impacted everything from human rights work to vital healthcare services.

But while the wider international community largely sees Belarus as a pariah state—Lukashenko has the explicit political support of Moscow, and China maintains close ties with the country—and the West has imposed sanctions on individuals in Belarus, there has been no let-up in government efforts to bring the population to heel.

However, the slew of releases of political prisoners, which began last summer and went right up to the elections, had prompted speculation that Lukashenko may be looking to repair relations with the West, especially as the conflict in Ukraine—Lukashenko has backed Russia and allowed Moscow to use Belarus to launch assaults on Ukraine—appears to be heading towards some kind of, at least temporary, end, and he looks to extract his country from ever-increasing dependence on Moscow.

But people who live in Belarus, and some who have fled into exile, told IPS they are not expecting the pervasive climate of fear that Lukashenko has spread to cement his control in the country to lift any time soon.

“Usually the human rights situation in Belarus after elections becomes calmer, with fewer arrests. But it doesn’t look that way this time. We are still getting information about repressions,” Natallia Satsunkevich, a human rights defender with the Belarussian NGO Viasna, told IPS.

She said Lukashenko could even decide to intensify his crackdown on opponents of his regime.

“Of course [he could], the repressive machine is huge and works fast. Police are still looking for and arresting people that participated in protests in 2020,” Satsunkevich said.

Others who have suffered under Lukashenko agree.

“Any expectations that the repression will ease are just wishful thinking,” Lidziya Tarasenka, co-founder of The Belarussian Medical Solidarity Foundation (Bymedsol), which operates outside Belarus helping doctors who have left the country, told IPS.

Tarasenka, who worked in healthcare in the capital, Minsk, before fleeing the country after the 2020 protests, said she saw no sign that repression in Belarus was easing off.

“First of all, the number of political prisoners that have been released is less than the number of those newly imprisoned. The government has learned their lessons and is trying to make new prosecutions as unnoticeable as possible, but the process is in full swing. Secondly, there is a whole army of different police/secret services and so on, their number is growing and they have to be doing something. [Repression] cannot be stopped that easily,” she said.

Some Belarussians who spoke to IPS gave some insight into the regime’s persecutions.

Sviatlana (NOT REAL NAME) fled Belarus last year after she feared she was about to be arrested. Her work in healthcare had brought her into contact with former political prisoners, some of whom had been tortured in prison, and she had given some money for treatment to help their recovery. She managed to escape, but she fears now that her former colleagues will be targeted by the security services simply for having worked with her.

“I’m expecting there will be repressions against the staff and management at my work now,” she told IPS.

Kruope added that while Belarusians not actively opposing the regime could try to adopt a “keep your head down and don’t make any trouble” approach to ensuring they avoid any repressions, even that carried no guarantees.

“One thing people have to watch out for is that you never know what might suddenly become a problem. You may have, in the past, liked a social media comment or followed someone, not even for their political views, or simply followed a media outlet that is then declared a terrorist group or something, and now find yourself in trouble. It is difficult to know what activity might suddenly become a criminal offense,” she said.

So far, it is unclear what Lukashenko may be planning as he begins his latest term in office. But the initial signs suggest he is not planning any kind of rapprochement with the West in the immediate future.

In a press conference immediately after his election win and as western leaders threatened more sanctions and dismissed the elections as a “sham,” he pointedly said, “I don’t give a damn about the West.”

However, even if repressions continue, rights defenders have not given up hope that things will improve in the future.

“I personally believe that one day Belarusians will live in a free and democratic country,” said Satsunkevich.
IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Pakistani journalists speak out about cybercrimes law from left to right Hamid Mir, Munazza Siddiqui and Umar Cheema. Credits: Jang News, and TikTok

By Zofeen Ebrahim
KARACHI, Feb 5 2025 (IPS)

“I may not be able to continue hosting my show because the content I put up will most certainly land me in prison,” said senior correspondent Azaz Syed who works for a private TV channel, but who also has his own private online digital channel. He was referring to the recent amendment in the already existing cybercrime law, terming it a “wild” law which has been instituted to grapple with fake news among other online harms.

The new version—Prevention of Electronic Crimes (Amendment) Act, 2025—passed hurriedly, within a week, in both the houses without debate, and signed into a law by President Asif Ali Zardari on January 29, has triggered nationwide protests by the country’s media personnel.

“They have taken away my right to freedom of expression,” Syed told IPS.

“I fail to understand the uproar among journalists working in electronic media. They already have PEMRA, [the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority] which is responsible for facilitating and regulating private electronic media,” said Minister for Information and Broadcasting Atta­ullah Tarar. “This law is to regulate the social media and countries across the world have some codes or standards under which social media operate; but there was none in our country.”

He said the existing authority, which is the Federal Investigation Authority, that looked into cybercrimes seemed ill-equipped to handle the expanding nature of online crimes taking place—harassment, pornography, national security threats, spreading economic uncertainty; just look at the conviction rate, which is dismal,” he defended the amendment.

Tarar’s reference to the “uproar” stems from TV journalists, like Syed, who have gigs on online platforms and fear the restrictions on content imposed by PECA.

For the past two years, Syed has been hosting a popular show on YouTube called Talk Shock, focusing on sensitive topics like the Pakistan army, intelligence agencies, blasphemy laws, persecution of Ahmadis, and forced conversions of Hindu girls. He described it as a passion project addressing issues close to his heart, despite potential disapproval from authorities. His show has gained over eight million viewers and 174,000 followers, also providing him with extra income.

Hamid Mir, host of Capital Talk, one of the oldest and highest-rated political talk shows, launched his digital TV channel on YouTube after being banned from TV in 2021 (he had already been banned twice, in 2007 by military dictator Pervez Musharraf  and in 2008 by the ruling Pakistan People’s Party) for  speaking against the country’s powerful military for persecuting journalists. “I share my opinions there when I am unable to on the channel that I’m employed in. Having your own platform is liberating,” he told IPS. He has 263,000 viewers.

Azaz Syed, who has his digital TV programme on YouTube called Talk Shock. Credit: Azaz Syed

Mir’s greater worry though is the possibility of losing his voice on X, where he connects with over eight million followers. “If I can’t speak my mind, it will have a profound impact on me,” he said.

But even those journalists who otherwise feel social media is being misused find the law distasteful.

“I have zero tolerance for fake news, and am all for regulating the beast that social media has become, but not this way, certainly” said senior investigative journalist, Umar Cheema, terming it a “third class” law.

The law was originally passed in 2016, by the same ruling party that has brought the current amendments – the Pakistan Muslim League-N. It had been met with much criticism even then.

“The reason for the need for the law given back in 2016 was to counter hate speech, terrorist content and harassment of women—this time the ruse is fake news,” said Farieha Aziz’s co-founder of Bolo Bhi, an advocacy forum for digital rights. The suspicion and criticism against the law now and then is the same—the government is using this law to “stifle political dissent and rein in freedom of expression” she said.

The amendment to the law, criminalises fake news and its dissemination with a prison term of up to three years and a fine of up to Rs 2 million (about USD 7,200).

But, pointed out Aziz, the concern went beyond just the penalties associated with the amendment to the law—it is the “potential for misuse” in the process of determining what constitutes fake news. “People will be reluctant to share or even discuss information out of fear that it might be deemed false or harmful, leading to criminal charges,” she explained, adding the definition of fake news was vague and broad. “They have created a vagueness through the use of language taken from the anti-terrorism act, around the offence,” she pointed out.

“The government operates in grey areas and likes to keep people in a state of confusion,” agreed Cheema.

Moreover, pointed out, Munazza Siddiqui, senior producer on a private TV channel: “The law is unconstitutional as it violates the fundamental right to freedom, a core principle enshrined in our Constitution.” She uses TikTok, a platform predominantly used for putting up entertaining content, for disseminating news and opinions. “It’s popular with young people but works superbly for me as they are my audience. The millennials and Gen Z want to stay informed about the world around them, but they lack the patience to sit through long articles or watch lengthy news segments on TV. I provide them with both in just a minute or so!”

However, Siddiqui acknowledged that her vlogging might be impacted. With the sword of Damocles hanging over her, in the form of the newly revised cyber law, she said, “We already navigate a space of self-censorship, and now there’s an added layer of fear.”

The law establishes four bodies—the Social Media Protection and Regulatory Authority, the Social Media Complaints Council, the Social Media Protection Tribunal, and the National Cyber Crime Investigation Agency—concentrating significant power. Aziz warned that these bodies, appointed by the federal government, could lack independence, creating potential conflicts of interest and undermining fairness and accountability.

“And the window of appeal has also been closed as I can only go to the Supreme Court of Pakistan,” said Azaz, which was an expensive route to prove your innocence.

Although the 2016 cybercrime law was already considered draconian by experts, the reason to tweak it further, explained Cheema, was that “the nature and use of social media has changed and become more sophisticated since then, adding that the media needed to share the blame for the recent shape the law has taken.

Cheema said the media did not establish a code of conduct for responsible social media use which led the government to step in, using the fake news excuse to silence dissenting voices. He emphasized that while media can express opinions, facts must be solid, and journalists should hold each other accountable. “Yet, we don’t even call out our colleagues for lying.”

Finding the nationwide protest hypocritical, he questioned, “The bill wasn’t a surprise—everyone knew it was being revised. Why didn’t anyone speak up then? Where were the protests and revisions when it was in the National Assembly and Senate? There was silence, and now, after it’s law, they’re out on the streets.”

“The law is in place,” Tarrar said with finality. However, he added: “The rules are still being worked out, and we’re open to media input to refine them.”

“Recalling the law may be tough,” agreed Cheema, but if the media is concerned, “They can come up with their own system; no one is stopping them; but that’s the real test for our community.”

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Venezuela's legislative National Assembly approves the Bolivar law to punish with unprecedented severity those who support or facilitate punitive measures against the country. Credit: AN

By Jorge Pastrán
WASHINGTON, Dec 18 2024 (IPS)

In Venezuela you can no longer say in public that the economic sanctions applied by the United States and other countries are appropriate, or even be suspected of considering any of the authorities illegitimate, because you can be sentenced to up to 30 years in prison and lose all your assets.

In late November, the ruling National Assembly passed the Simon Bolivar Organic Law (of superior rank) against the imperialist blockade and in defence of the Republic, the latest in a regulatory padlock closing civic space, according to human rights organisations.“We see a process of authoritarian learning. When we look at democratic setbacks, we see things that are repeated as patterns, such as the closure of civic space, of civil organisations, of journalism, of democratic political parties”: Carolina Jiménez Sandoval.

The powers of the Venezuelan state thus responded to United States’ and the European Union’s sanctions, and to the protests and denunciations of opponents and American and European governments, to the effect that a gigantic fraud was committed in the presidential election of 28 July this year.

The ruling Nicolás Maduro was proclaimed by the electoral and judicial powers as re-elected president for a third six-year term beginning on 10 January 2025, even though the opposition claims, by showing voting records, that it was their candidate Edmundo González who won, with at least 67% of the vote.

Speaking to IPS, several human rights defenders agreed that the country is following the example of Nicaragua, where laws and measures are driving hundreds of opponents into prison and exile, stripping them of their nationality and property, and suppressing critical voices by shutting down thousands of civil, religious and educational organisations.

“A red line has been crossed and the Nicaraguan path has been taken. Arbitrariness has been put in writing, in black and white, the repressive reality of the Venezuelan state, something even the military despots of the past did not do,” said lawyer Alí Daniels, director of the organisation Acceso a la Justicia, from Caracas.

The law adopted its long name as an indignant response to the US Bolivar Act, an acronym for Banning Operations and Leases with the Illegitimate Venezuelan Authoritarian Regime, designed to block most of that country’s business dealings with Venezuela.

The president of the non-governmental Washington Office on Latin America (Wola), Carolina Jiménez Sandoval, observed that “the closer we get to 10 January, the day when whoever won the 28 July election must be sworn in, we see more and more laws meant to stifling civic space.”

Other laws along these lines include: one to punish behaviour or messages deemed to incite hatred; another “against fascism, neo-fascism and similar expressions”; a reform to promptly elect 30,000 justices of the peace; and a law to control non-governmental organisations.

Demonstration in Caracas demanding respect for human rights. Credit: Civilis

Mere suspicion is enough

The Venezuelan Bolivar act considers that sanctions and other restrictive measures against the country “constitute a crime against humanity”, and lists conduct and actions that put the nation and its population at risk.

These include promoting, requesting or supporting punitive measures by foreign states or corporations, and “disregarding the public powers legitimately established in the Republic, their acts or their authorities.”

Those who have at any time “promoted, instigated, requested, invoked, favoured, supported or participated in the adoption or execution of measures” deemed harmful to the population or the authorities, will be barred from running for elected office for up to 60 years.

Any person who “promotes, instigates, solicits, invokes, favours, facilitates, supports or participates in the adoption or execution of unilateral coercive measures” against the population or the powers in Venezuela will be punished with 25 to 30 years in prison and fines equivalent to between US$100,000 and one million.

In the case of media and digital platforms, the punishment will be a heavy fine and the closure or denial of permits to operate.

The law highlights the creation of “a register that will include the identification of natural and legal persons, national or foreign, with respect to whom there is good reason to consider that they are involved in any of the actions contrary to the values and inalienable rights of the state.”

This registry is created to “impose restrictive, temporary economic measures of an administrative nature, aimed at mitigating the damage that their actions cause against the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela and its population.”

Daniels tells IPS that “this means that a mere suspicion on the part of an official, with good reason to believe that a sanction is supported, is sufficient for a preventive freezing of a person’s assets, prohibiting them from buying, selling or acting in a money-making business.”

“Without prior trial, by an official’s decision, without knowing where to appeal against the entry in that register, the person is stripped of means of livelihood. Civil death returns,” he added.

Archive image of a national meeting of human rights defenders. Credit: Civicus

Other laws

The “anti-hate law” – without defining what is meant by it – has since 2018 prosecuted protesters, journalists, firefighters, political activists and human rights defenders on charges of directing messages inciting hatred towards the authorities.

This year, the state endowed itself with a law to punish fascism and similar expressions, a broad arc because it considers that “racism, chauvinism, classism, moral conservatism, neoliberalism and misogyny are common features of this stance.”

It has also reformed the justice of the peace law to promote the popular election of 30,000 local judges, under criticism from human rights organisations that see the process as a mechanism for the control of communities by pro-government activists and the promotion of informing on neighbours.

And, while the Bolivar act was being passed, the law on the control of NGOs and similar organisations was published, which NGOs have labelled an “anti-society law”, as it contains provisions that easily nullify their capacity for action and their very existence.

The law establishes a new registry with some 30 requirements, which are difficult for NGOs to meet, but they can only operate if authorised by the government, which can suspend them from operating or sanction them with fines in amounts that in practice are confiscatory.

“I think the application of the Bolívar law is going to be very discretionary, and if Maduro is sworn in again on Jan. 10, civic space will be almost completely closed and the social and democratic leadership will have to work underground,” sociologist Rafael Uzcátegui, director of the Venezuelan Laboratorio de Paz, which operates in Caracas, told IPS.

The president of Nicaragua, Daniel Ortega, and his wife and vice-president, Rosario Murillo, have taken measures against dissent that are models of authoritarianism in the region. Human rights activists believe that in countries such as Venezuela and El Salvador their strategies and norms are being replicated by those who seek to remain in power indefinitely. Credit: Presidency of Nicaragua

The Nicaraguan path

Daniels also argues that with the Bolívar law, the government “is going back 160 years, when the Venezuelan Constitution after the Federal War (1859-1863) abolished the death penalty and life sentences. A punishment that lasts 60 years in practice is in perpetuity, exceeding the average life expectancy of an adult in Venezuela.”

Along with this, “although without going to the Nicaraguan extreme of stripping the alleged culprits of their nationality, punishments are imposed that can turn people into civilian zombies, driven into exile. As in Nicaragua”.

For Jiménez Sandoval “there are similarities with Nicaragua, a harsh and consolidated case. It has cancelled the legal personality of more than 3,000 organisations, including humanitarian entities, national and international human rights organisations and universities, through the application of very strict laws.”

“In these cases… we see a process of authoritarian learning. When we look at democratic setbacks, we see things that are repeated as patterns, such as the closure of civic space, of civil organisations, of journalism, of democratic political parties,” she told IPS.

To achieve this, “they use different strategies, such as co-opting legislatures to make laws that allow them to imprison and silence those who think differently, to avoid any kind of criticism, because, at the end of the day, the ultimate goal of authoritarianism is to remain in power indefinitely”, concluded Jiménez Sandoval.

Mahrang Baloch recently was acknowledged by the BBC as one of the most inspiring and influential women from around the world for 2024. Credit: Baloch Yakjehti Committee

By Zofeen Ebrahim
KARACHI, Dec 13 2024 (IPS)

“This recognition by a media outlet highlights the painful stories of abductions, torture, and the genocide of the Baloch people,” said 31-year-old political activist Mahrang Baloch, speaking with IPS over the phone from Quetta, Balochistan, in reference to her inclusion on the BBC’s annual list of 100 most inspiring and influential women from around the world for 2024.

“BBC 100 Women acknowledges the toll this year has taken on women by celebrating those who—through their resilience—are pushing for change as the world changes around them,” stated the media organization.

This is the second award that Mahrang received this year. In October, she was among Time magazine’s ‘2024 Time100 Next’ list of young individuals to recognize for “advocating peacefully for Baloch rights.”

She was invited by the magazine to attend a ceremony in New York, but she was stopped at the airport from boarding the plane on October 7 “without giving me a reason” why. She stated that she was termed a “terrorist” and a “suicide bomber,” with multiple cases filed against her. “And if this were not enough, now I and my brother have been placed on the Fourth Schedule list,” she said. Introduced in 1997, the Fourth Schedule aimed to combat sectarian violence, militancy, and terrorism. Almost 4,000 Baloch have been placed in the Fourth Schedule list.

Being placed on the Fourth Schedule under the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) is a serious matter, resulting in restrictions such as travel bans, frozen bank accounts, prohibitions on financial support, arms license embargoes, and employment clearance limitations.

A trained medical doctor, Mahrang began protesting against the alleged abductions and killings of innocent Baloch by Pakistani security forces in 2006, well before her father, a political activist, forcibly disappeared in 2009. His tortured body was discovered in 2011.

In 2017, her brother was abducted, and though he was released in 2018, Mahrang continued to advocate for justice for all the disappeared, despite facing threats and intimidation. In 2019, she founded the Baloch Yakjehti Committee (BYC), a human rights movement dedicated to raising awareness and seeking justice for the Baloch people.

Balochistan’s history of resistance against the Pakistan government began in 1948 and continues. Pakistan’s military, paramilitary and intelligence forces have responded with kidnapping, torturing and killing tens of thousands of Baloch men.

The Voice for the Baloch Missing Persons, a non-profit organisation representing family members of those who disappeared in Balochistan, has registered approximately 7,000 cases since 2000.

“We have been fighting for our families now for over two decades, on every platform. I have appeared in courts, even the Supreme Court of Pakistan, presented our cause at every commission and committee that the government or the judiciary has set up but so far there has been no progress. In fact, in the last three months of this year alone, more Baloch individuals are being picked than in any other time,” said Nasrullah Baloch, chairman of the VBMP, speaking to IPS over the phone.

“We have no confidence in any government institution, especially the government-constituted Commission of Inquiry on Enforced Disappearances (CoIED), anymore to resolve our issue,” he rued.

But neither does the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ). In 2020, Ian Seiderman, ICJ’s Legal and Policy Director, stated the commission (established in 2011) had failed to hold even a single perpetrator of enforced disappearance responsible.

“A commission that does not address impunity nor facilitate justice for victims and their families can certainly not be considered effective,” he said.

Since the ICJ’s policy brief, not much seems to have changed. Indeed, Mahrang asserts that the situation has deteriorated. In the past three months, “over 300 Baloch have been abducted, and seven cases of extrajudicial killings have been reported.” On the other hand, the CoIED reported that it had resolved 8,015 of the 10,285 cases it had investigated from 2011 to June 2024.

In 2021 and then again in 2022, Pakistan’s parliament tried passing a bill to criminalize enforced disappearances but it has not yet come into force. Pakistan has refused to ratify the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance.

Media’s Dismal Role

While the international media has given Baloch activists like Mahrang “hope” by amplifying their voices and bringing “visibility” to their “genuine” cause, she said it has failed to ignite the Pakistani media.

“Our national media has failed us,” she lamented, adding that they never supported their “genuine” cause. In such circumstances, the recognition by the international media gives her some “hope.”

Prominent journalist and author Mohammad Hanif, who has consistently highlighted the issue of missing Baloch, described Mahrang as “articulate, clearheaded, and inspirational.” He admitted that the media in Pakistan has not given the issue adequate coverage, revealing, “There were standing instructions to newsrooms not to cover it.” Furthermore, he pointed out a “clear bias among mainstream journalists against Baloch issues.”

Talat Hussain, political commentator and journalist, agreed that media coverage of enforced disappearances had been “limited and partially blacked out” but added it was not entirely absent in its coverage.

He acknowledged he had not covered the issue extensively, not because he had been asked to avoid it, but because the overwhelming news flow in Islamabad, driven by political unrest, protests, rising terrorism, and economic challenges, eclipsed everything.

However, Hussain noted that what was considered a human rights issue had become deeply politicized, increasingly intertwined with Baloch separatism. Many now view the activists as opponents of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor projects. “This complicates efforts to recognize Mahrang solely as a human rights campaigner,” he remarked.

Farah Zia, director of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, declined to equate the BYC with the separatist movement. She described women like Mahrang, who “come out to protest and even lead them,” as a refreshing phenomenon. “This completely unarmed, non-violent resistance movement makes these young women leaders extremely powerful.” Moreover, said Zia, “Even her followers are young, educated Baloch who have defied their traditional power centres, including their tribal elders.”

“They have broken many stereotypes associated with Baloch women,” agreed Zohra Yusuf, a rights activist. In 2023, Mahrang led hundreds of women on a 1,000-mile (1,600 km) march to the capital Islamabad to demand information on the whereabouts of their family members. She was arrested twice during the journey. The BBC highlighted her December 2023 march to Islamabad, where she and hundreds of women marched for “justice for their husbands, sons, and brothers.”

“The people of Balochistan see Mahrang and the BYC as a beacon of hope because they have completely lost faith in the politicians,” pointed out Mir Mohammad Ali Talpur, who has been associated with the Baloch rights struggle since 1971 and wrote about violations of their rights in newspapers till 2015, after which he said the “media stopped publishing my pieces due to state pressure.”

“There are no consequences for those implementing disappear, kill and dump policies,” said Hanif. “The state believes in its own brute colonial power.”

“Enforced disappearances will continue as there is total impunity for the perpetrators. Those associated with the intelligence and security agencies have no regard for the rule of law,” pointed out Yusuf. She said the young doctor had exhibited “positive leadership qualities by being firm on her demands without creating hatred towards anyone.”

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

IPS UN Bureau, IPS UN Bureau Report, Pakistan

Alab Mirasol Ayroso making her speech during the Youth Action in the hallways of COP29, Baku. Credit: Joyce Chimbi/IPS

By Joyce Chimbi
BAKU, Nov 17 2024 (IPS)

“We cannot rely on capitalistic logic to serve our fight for liberation. More investments will not build houses after floods because it’s not profitable. Corporations will not overthrow the industrial-agricultural complex that is completing our assault.”

So say the Alliance of Non-Governmental Radical Youths and People’s Rising for Climate Justice Youth that jointly led this youth action at the COP29 venue.

“That is why we are here to fight for the technical details to prevent the harm that money can cause. We cannot accept more loans and more debt. Climate finance cannot ‘financialize’ the climate crisis in power markets or fault solutions.”

Speaking to IPS, Alab Mirasol Ayroso said that the youth action is about their “demands as young people. We talked about fossil fuels, the phase-out of fossil fuels and more importantly, we talked about false solutions and militarization. Mostly, it’s really about recognizing the human rights in these negotiations, in these spaces where we can have real solutions if we only listen to the people on the ground.”

Drawn from all corners of the world, the youths have coalesced around issues that matter to them. Issues that they say are not a priority agenda for COP29 negotiations. They sang, chanted and, one after the other, made powerful speeches about climate change, peace and unity, human and environmental rights, the end of fossil fuels, climate debt and that rich countries and high polluters must pay.

Hajar, one of the speakers at the Youth Action, stressed that the “wealthiest nation must confront their colonial histories and make meaningful progress on reparation for loss and damage caused by their climate crisis. On demilitarization and its connection to finance stands a huge capitalist market that benefits from slaughtering, killing, and exploitation. Yet when we ask for money, there is always the same answer. There is not enough money.”

Ayroso says the young people can see through the smokescreen, hypocrisy, double speak, a lack of climate commitment and the youth agenda: “There is a lot of money. There is enough money all around, but we also know it is going to militarism, wars and genocides. There is simply no political will. This is why we refuse to be sidelined and silenced. We want the world to listen, hear us and our demands.”

“When the fire gets high. When the smoke rolls in. When the people rise. Can you hear us sing? It’s the end of fossil fuels. The end of fossil fuels. When the water gets high. When the flood rolls in. When the people rise. Can you hear us sing? It’s the end of fossil fuels. The end of fossil fuels. When the heat gets high. When the tide walks in. When the people rise. Can you hear us sing? It’s the end of fossil fuels,” they sang.

The youth want direct access for indigenous peoples, youth, children, workers, women, LGBTQIA and people with disabilities. Vowing to stand united at COP29 “until the last minute. We are in these halls to fight for our rights. There is no climate justice without human rights.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Kemitoma Siperia Mollie, Praise Aloikin, and Kobusingye Norah appear in court early in September. They were charged with common nuisance. Credit: Wambi Michael/IPS

By Wambi Michael
KAMPALA, Oct 24 2024 (IPS)

Until recently, Margaret Natabi would never have dreamed of taking her anti-corruption fight on the streets of Uganda’s capital, Kampala.

Natabi, 24, is a University student. She has first-hand experience of how corruption affects marginalized groups, especially women and girls.

She was orphaned during childhood. Her mother died while giving birth to one of her siblings. She believes that if it were not for corruption, her mother would not have died.

Natabi is among those arrested in July during the famous “march to parliament in protest.” The march followed a social media campaign by young Ugandans using the hashtag #StopCorruption.

On the day of her arrest, Natabi was holding a poster reading, “The corrupt are playing with the wrong generation.” Data from the latest population and housing census indicate that some 15 million out of a population of 45 million Ugandans.

When the police approached her during the protest, Natabi did not resist.  Female police constables lifted her and bundled her into the police car.

“I was so determined to preach the gospel against corruption to everyone. Even the police officer that was arresting me,” she shared.

However, the arresting officers were not about to listen to her.

“I actually don’t know where the policemen and women got that anger from because I was peaceful. It was as if something was charging them with anger. I was just exercising my constitutional rights. But here they were charging at me with brutal force,” Natabi narrated.

While others went to beat the young men taking part in the protest, she claimed that a male police officer kicked her hard in the back.

“Then the police officer turned to me, saying, ‘Look at you. You have painted nails; you have money to plait in your hair. What has corruption done to you? And you are saying this country is hard for you!’” she narrated.

Natabi further narrated that she insisted on “preaching to the officers” the dangers of corruption.

“I told the officer that by the time you see me here, you don’t know how many things I have lost due to corruption. I do not have a father. I do not have a mother. Do you know how corruption caused that? My mother had to die because she was not attended to at the hospital when she was pregnant. She lost her baby and she lost her life.”

Even though she had just come out of prison, Natabi told IPS that she was not about to give up in her fight against corruption. “Because the more I keep quiet, I’m doing an injustice to my country,” she said

“We may not end corruption. But the number of people who have seen what we are doing, the eyes that we are opening—there is a person today who is going to pick that courage from us,” said Natabi. “When we all keep quiet, nobody is going to rise up. But some people just want to see one person standing up and they will get that courage.”

Natabi is not alone; more and more young women like 25-year-old Claire Namara have come out to challenge the status quo. She was charged with disturbing a lawful religious assembly.

Her problem stemmed from a lone protest during mass at a Catholic church in the suburbs of Kampala. Dressed in black and holding the Ugandan flag, Namara attempted to preach to the congregants about the dangers of the luxurious lifestyle of the country’s Speaker of Parliament, Annett Anita, whom many believe squanders public money for personal gain.

Namara also had a poster with a picture of a sanitary pad with the message, “Magogo’s birthday car would pad one million young girls for a year. #StopCorruption.”

The Police questioned her about the message on the sanitary pad poster.

“He asked me to read the placard twice. I confidently read it because I wrote it when I meant it. He asked me what the meaning of this message was. I told him the cost of Magogo’s car would (provide) pads for one million girls in a year; that is what we are meaning and that is a fact,” Namara narrated.

Anita bought a new Range Rover as a birthday present when millions of girls were going with sanitary pads.

Many young girls in rural Uganda continue to miss long constructive hours away from school because of a lack of sanitary pads.

In 2021, the government and a group of civil society organizations published A Menstrual Health Snapshot of Uganda, which found that 65% (nearly 7 out of 10) of girls and women in Uganda did not have access to products to fully meet their menstrual health needs. It noted that 70 percent of adolescent girls mentioned menstruation as a major hindrance to their optimal school performance.

“I would at certain point fail to get sanitary pads and I would end up using cloth. That is a personal story but as well, in my village, many girls still struggle to afford sanitary pads,” Namara told IPS.

President Yoweri Museveni during the 2016 election pledged to provide funds for free sanitary pads in schools. However, in 2020, his wife, Janet Museveni, also the Minister of Education and Sports, said that there were no funds to sustain the provision of free sanitary pads.

Namara told IPS that while the government said it lacked the money to fund menstrual hygiene, politicians—more so women politicians—have been named in corruption scandals.

“I must believe that even when we think that we have it all, every woman, apart from those who belong to the first family and those who are stealing from our taxes, has struggled to get pads. Even when you access it, you struggle to get that money,” argues Namara, who believes that the state must ensure that young girls have access to safe menstrual hygiene services.

Namara told IPS that while she was facing ridicule from a section of the public that condemned her for carrying “her” protest to church, she has equally been receiving messages of commendation from many.

“We need a bigger discussion in Uganda about women in Uganda and how they are facing these societal norms. I was so disappointed by fellow women who were asking how she could go to protest in church. She is a young girl. Who will marry her?

In early September, Norah Kobusingye, Praise Aloikin Opoloje, and Kemitoma Kyenziibo were arrested while marching the Parliament building with posters “No Corruption.” They had almost stripped naked and painted their bodies.  The youthful protestors, who belong to the Uganda Freedom Activists, were slapped with a common nuisance charge contrary to the Uganda Penal Code Act.

In reaction, the feminist scholar and writer Dr. Stella Nyanzi said the young women’s imprisonment would not deter the peaceful protests.

“Charging comrades Kemitoma Siperia Mollie, Praise Aloikin, and Kobusingye Norah with common nuisance and remanding them to Luzira Women’s Prison until September 12, 2024 will not stop the peaceful #March2Parliament to #StopCorruption and demand that #AnitaMustResign,” observed Nyanzi, known for using “radical rudeness” as a form of political protest similar to what the young men did.

The emergence of a young breed of female anti-corruption actors in Uganda has triggered debate. For some, these young people have broken the formal and cultural barriers about women and corruption.

Dr. Miria Matembe, a former Minister of Ethics and Integrity under Museveni, agrees with those who believe that the young women anti-corruption activists have come to challenge the status quo because the once vibrant women’s movement in Uganda has been silenced.

“Do you hear any NGO going out the way we used to do? They are in their offices doing their work. So the space for us who used to go out is completely closed.”

She told IPS that the entire system of governance in Uganda is corrupt.  “Corruption is not about the Prime Minister because she is a woman. Look at the women politicians individually. They are greedy. We have a transactional parliament. Rather than a transformative parliament. When Museveni wants something, he takes them aside and asks how much.  Therefore, I must say we are heading nowhere,” she said.

Others say they are posing a challenge to women who are holding “big” positions under Museveni. There is a feeling that women in leadership like Vice President Jessica Alupo, Speaker of Parliament Anita Among, and Prime Minister Robina Nabanja have conspired with Museveni in propping up a corrupt regime.

Younger female Ugandans, like Nantongo Bashira, believe that those leaders have let them down.

Bashira, a lecturer at the Islamic University in Uganda, told IPS that young women bear the responsibility to make the future they want.

“We keep on saying the future is female. If you tell us that the future is women and corruption is skyrocketing, the future is female and things are not going your way, it is our responsibility to shape that future that we want,” said Bashira.

Aili Mari Tripp, a Vilas Research Professor of Political Science at the University of Wisconsin-Madison USA, wrote in a paper titled “How African Autocracies Instrumentalize Women Leaders” that Uganda is among the autocracies that have instrumentalized women to stay longer in power.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Internet disruptions in Pakistan have become a freedom of expression issue. Credit: Usman Yousaf/Unsplash

By Annam Lodhi
ISLAMABAD, Oct 9 2024 (IPS)

Over the past few months, Pakistan has been grappling with a persistent and disruptive internet slowdown, leaving millions of citizens frustrated.

The disruptions are said to continue until the end of October, what began as intermittent disruptions has turned into a widespread, prolonged issue, significantly affecting freelancers, students, businesses, and everyday life.

The internet, once a tool for empowerment, now mirrors Pakistan’s deeper socio-political challenges, becoming a battleground for control and censorship. The slowdowns have disrupted the digital economy, highlighting the government’s increasing control over internet access and turning a space of connectivity into one of political manipulation and restriction.

 When Did the Internet Start to Slow Down?

Internet censorship and shutdowns are not new to Pakistan, especially during politically sensitive periods. In 2023 alone, internet shutdowns cost Pakistan over Rs65 billion, affecting 83 million people and lasting 259 hours, according to Statista. Pakistan ranked 7th globally in economic losses from internet disruptions, with a total loss of USD 237.6 million.

The first major slowdown in mid-2024 was initially blamed on undersea cable repairs, a frequent issue in the past. However, as weeks passed and disruptions persisted, it became evident that the problem was far more deliberate and widespread. The government’s vague justifications citing “national security” concerns only fueled public frustration and deepened suspicions about its true motives.

Opposition leaders brought the issue to the National Assembly, but the government’s inconsistent responses did little to alleviate concerns. Many began to speculate that the slowdowns were part of a broader effort to control public discourse and limit the reach of specific content on platforms like X (formerly Twitter) and Facebook. “Internet shutdowns have become a tool for suppressing dissent,” explains Fariha Aziz, co-founder of digital rights organization Bolo Bhi. “The government’s lack of transparency and contradictory statements about what’s happening makes it clear that there is more at play than just technical difficulties.”

Direct removal of content from social media platforms remains impossible for the government; these disruptions seem to be aimed at slowing the flow of information and limiting the reach of critical posts. “The WhatsApp disruption was an eye opener,” Aziz notes. “It showed us that the government has tested, tried, or put in place something more sophisticated than just throttling speeds.”

Internet slowdowns and shutdowns have severely impacted the economy, with the country heavily reliant on digital infrastructure. Pakistan joins other countries like India, Russia, and Ethiopia, where internet blackouts have caused significant financial damage. Globally, Russia experienced the largest monetary loss, with over USD 4 billion in damages due to internet shutdowns in 2023. Neighboring countries like Bangladesh and India, where similar tactics have been employed to control dissent. In Myanmar, the situation has been even more extreme, with the junta using total internet blackouts to prevent communication and stifle opposition. The growing comparisons between Pakistan and Myanmar are alarming, raising concerns about the future of internet freedom in the country.

 A History of Internet Censorship

Amnesty International has expressed growing concern over the increasing use of surveillance technologies and internet disruptions to monitor online activities, especially during times of unrest. The lack of transparency and justification for these actions undermines citizens’ right to freedom of expression.

“Internet shutdowns rarely meet the legal requirements of necessity and proportionality, making them unlawful under international human rights law,” says Hajira Maryam, Media Manager at Amnesty Tech.

For activists, journalists, and researchers, staying safe during internet shutdowns has become increasingly critical. Hajira Maryam emphasizes the importance of digital security measures, stating, “Before a shutdown, individuals should secure their devices by enabling encryption, updating software, and using strong passcodes. Using a Virtual Private Network (VPN) can help bypass some blocks, but it is essential to understand the risks, as VPNs are often criminalized in certain contexts.”

Amnesty International has called on Pakistani authorities to be transparent about the reasons behind internet disruptions and to avoid deploying unnecessary and disproportionate monitoring and surveillance systems that violate international human rights laws. Internet disruptions not only limit access to information and expression but also create anxiety within communities, including the Pakistani diaspora, who are often cut off from communication with their loved ones.

In line with international legal frameworks, Amnesty urges that any restrictions on internet access must be legal, necessary, proportionate, and time-bound. The United Nations Human Rights Council and Special Rapporteurs have condemned the use of internet shutdowns as unlawful restrictions on freedom of assembly and expression, stressing that such measures must not hinder peaceful gatherings or public expression, especially during times of political unrest.

 Freelancers on the Frontline

One of the most severely impacted groups is Pakistan’s growing freelance workforce. Pakistan is ranked among the top five countries for freelancers globally, with thousands relying on platforms like Fiverr and Upwork to earn their livelihood. However, the internet slowdown has shattered their ability to deliver services reliably.

Umair Liaquat, a freelancer from Lahore who offers services related to advertisement management, began freelancing in 2020 after losing his job due to the COVID-19 pandemic. For two years, he successfully grew a top-rated Fiverr account, earning around USD 20,000 to USD 25,000. However, things took a downturn in 2024 when Pakistan’s internet slowdown became worse.

“In March 2024, Fiverr downgraded Pakistani sellers, warning clients that due to internet issues, delivery might be delayed. My contacts started declining immediately. To get around this, I began using a VPN and changed my location to the USA, which helped temporarily,” Umair explained.

Unfortunately, Fiverr disabled his account after detecting location inconsistency. After creating a new account, his business never regained the same traction due to firewall restrictions and frequent internet issues. This has left many freelancers, like Umair, scrambling to find alternative platforms and workarounds just to stay afloat.

Ali Raza, a business owner based in Karachi who works in the marketplace and recruitment space, echoed similar concerns. “In just a few months, I’ve lost over $20,000 in revenue because of slow internet. International clients can’t communicate with us properly, which delays projects and results in lost contracts. In a highly competitive market, this is devastating.”

The economic impact on freelancers is compounded by the fact that platforms like Fiverr and Upwork now rank Pakistan lower due to the country’s unreliable internet infrastructure. This further discourages international clients from working with Pakistani freelancers.

Impact on Education

Pakistan’s ongoing internet slowdown has severely impacted students across the country, exacerbating an already fragile education system that shifted online during the COVID-19 pandemic. With stable internet access crucial for millions of students, especially in rural areas, the disruptions have caused an educational crisis. Many students struggle to access lectures, participate in discussions, or submit assignments on time, significantly hindering their academic progress.

Wardah Noor, CEO of XWave, an online learning platform, shared her organization’s challenges: “In August, we had 1,500 registrations for a 10-day IT boot camp, but due to internet disruptions, only 300 participants attended. This delay set us back by two months and raised operational costs significantly.”

The impact is most pronounced in rural areas, where online education was the only viable option to bridge the educational divide. Now, the gap between urban and rural students has widened further, leaving those in remote areas with few alternatives. The global reach of education has also been compromised. Students enrolled in international programs have struggled to keep up with global timelines due to Pakistan’s slow internet.

“The global market moves on, leaving our students behind,” Wardah added.

Wardah also called for urgent government intervention to address the crisis. “Tech education without the internet is impossible. These disruptions have pushed us further from the dream of a ‘Digital Pakistan.’ The government must prioritize improving internet accessibility, especially in rural areas.”

Government’s Role and Digital Control

As the internet crisis continues, the role of the government has come under increasing scrutiny. the PTA has now admitted to “tinkering” with the internet as part of an effort to upgrade a controversial web monitoring system. Many speculate that these measures are part of a broader strategy to control the flow of information, especially during times of political unrest.

During periods of political tension, the internet has been deliberately slowed down or shut off to curb protests and control public opinion. In 2023, for instance, following the arrest of a former Prime Minister, the government admitted to throttling the internet to suppress protests. Similar tactics are being deployed in 2024, with digital rights activists and opposition leaders calling out the government for using the internet as a tool of repression.

The internet slowdown has extended beyond professional and educational circles, affecting daily life in ways that were previously unimaginable. Simple tasks, such as banking, accessing healthcare services via telemedicine, and even staying in touch with loved ones abroad, have become more challenging.

 What Lies Ahead for Pakistan’s Internet?

The internet slowdown in Pakistan has exposed critical vulnerabilities in the country’s digital infrastructure. With the growing reliance on digital platforms for economic growth, education, and daily services, a stable internet connection is no longer a luxury—it is a necessity. Some efforts are being made to address these issues.

Companies like Meta have announced plans to invest in new undersea cables to improve internet speeds in Pakistan, but this raises concerns about the role of private companies in managing the country’s internet infrastructure and its potential impact on digital sovereignty.

At the same time, civil society organizations, international watchdogs, and opposition leaders continue to press for accountability. Clear regulations and transparency are essential to ensure that internet disruptions are not used as tools of political control. The government must prioritize improving internet infrastructure and ensuring that citizens can access a reliable and stable internet, free from unnecessary censorship.

As Pakistan navigates this digital crisis, the government must confront difficult questions about the future of the internet in the country. Will it continue to be a battleground for political control, or will it become a space for freedom and innovation? The answers to these questions will shape the future of Pakistan’s economy, education, and society for generations to come.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

 
CIVICUS discusses the recent Twitter/X ban in Brazil with Iná Jost, lawyer and head of research at InternetLab, an independent Brazilian think tank focused on human rights and digital technologies.

Brazil’s Supreme Court recently upheld a ban on Elon Musk’s social media platform X, formerly Twitter, after it repeatedly refused to comply with orders to moderate content. The court ordered tech companies to remove X from app stores and imposed fines for continued access via VPNs in Brazil. This appeared to cause users to switch to alternatives such as Bluesky and Threads. Musk condemned the ban as an attack on free speech, but has since backed down and complied with the court’s orders. Debate continues over the controversy’s implications for democracy and accountability.

Iná Jost

The case began on 7 August when a Supreme Court justice, investigating ‘digital malicious activities’, ordered the blocking of seven X profiles for intimidating law enforcement officers and directly threatening the integrity of the court and democracy in Brazil.

X refused to comply with the order, claiming it violated freedom of expression. The judge then imposed a daily fine for non-compliance, which was subsequently raised and ended up amounting to over US$3 million as Musk continued to refuse to comply. At one point, the justice ordered the freezing of X’s financial assets in Brazil, but they weren’t enough to cover the fines.

After more back and forth, tensions escalated when the judge also froze the bank accounts of satellite internet company Starlink, arguing that both companies were part of the same economic group. This caused some controversy, as Starlink operates in a different sphere and its operations aren’t entirely linked to X.

The turning point came when X closed its headquarters in Brazil. Without a legal representative in the country, the court found it difficult to enforce its orders or impose additional penalties. It then gave X 24 hours to appoint a new representative, which it failed to do. As a result, on 30 August, the court ordered the closure of X.

It is important to mention that the court is not super transparent and the whole procedure was carried out under seal. We are unable to grasp the full picture because the process is closed and not all decisions are made public.

What was the legal basis for the decision to close X?

The Court based its decision on Brazil’s 2014 Civil Framework for the Internet. Under this law, platforms can be blocked for failing to comply with Brazilian laws or court orders. Some confusion arose over the notion that the ban was due to X’s lack of a legal representative in Brazil; however, the shutdown resulted from the company’s repeated refusal to comply with court orders.

Civil society raised concerns about some aspects of the decision. Initially, the order included blocking VPN services to prevent access to X, but this part was later reversed due to cybersecurity risks. Blocking VPNs that serve legitimate purposes would have been disproportionate. The order also proposed a US$9,000 fine for users trying to circumvent the ban, which many felt was excessive. We believe the focus should be on holding the company accountable, not punishing individual users.

Is it possible to strike a balance between regulating online platforms and protecting freedoms?

It is. Regulating platforms isn’t necessarily about censorship. In this case, it’s about ensuring a powerful company operates transparently and protects users. Platforms acting solely in their commercial interests can harm the public interest. Regulation can force them to provide clear terms and conditions and fair content moderation policies and respect due process for content removal.

The belief that any form of regulation threatens freedom of expression is misguided. Thoughtful regulation that allows users to express themselves while protecting them from harm such as hate speech or misinformation can balance the scales.

Musk’s stance in this case is deeply problematic. His selective compliance with court orders undermines the rule of law. While platforms like X are crucial to public communication, that doesn’t give them the right to defy the legal system they operate in. Freedom of expression does not absolve platforms of their legal responsibilities, particularly when those laws protect the integrity of democracy.

Musk’s claim that X represents absolute freedom of expression fails to consider the risks of a platform without proper rules. Without moderation, platforms can become havens for extremist groups, hate speech and disinformation. They should be regulated to ensure they remain a space for lawful discourse.

Do you think this case will set a precedent?

I don’t think so. Some people are worried other platforms could be blocked as well, but I don’t think that will happen. This is a unique scenario, and Brazil is a strong democracy. This wasn’t an act of censorship by the judiciary but a necessary measure given the platform owner’s refusal to comply with court orders.

States should develop regulatory mechanisms that allow them to hold platforms accountable and ensure compliance with national laws. This would avoid the need for outright blocking, which ultimately harms the users the most. While the company might incur some financial losses, journalists and citizens are losing access to a vital information and communication tool.

I hope states that are serious about regulating platforms will see this as an example of what shouldn’t happen. We shouldn’t allow things to escalate to this point. And we certainly shouldn’t use this as a leading case for blocking platforms.

Get in touch with InternetLab through its website or its Instagram and Facebook pages, and follow @internetlabbr on Twitte.

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Fawziya Koofi, former Deputy Speaker of Parliament in Afghanistan, addresses reporters following the "The Inclusion of Women in the Future of Afghanistan" meeting. Credit: Mark Garten/UN Photo

By Naureen Hossain
UNITED NATIONS, Sep 24 2024 (IPS)

Women in Afghanistan have continued to advocate for their rights and have called on the international community to not only stand in solidarity but to take decisive action to prevent the erosion of their rights and presence in public space.

On Monday, the New York missions of Qatar, Indonesia, Ireland and Switzerland, with the Women’s Forum on Afghanistan, convened at a high-level meeting to discuss the current situation for women’s rights.

Since August 2021, the Taliban authorities have systematically reversed the rights of women and girls, all but shrinking and obliterating their ability to participate in Afghan society. Despite repeated calls from the international community to protect women’s rights, the Taliban have only doubled down. Their latest edicts of morality laws further restrict the activities of women and girls, barring them from speaking or singing out in public.

Asila Wardak, from the Women’s Forum on Afghanistan, told the meeting women were being systematically erased from public life.

“The future of Afghanistan cannot be built on the exclusion of half the population,” she said. “Women must be part of the solution, not sidelined.”

The event included messages from notable members of the international community extending solidarity to the women of Afghanistan.

UN Secretary-General António Guterres said the UN would continue its work to engage women and women-led groups in Afghanistan and ensure their spaces for operation, calling for them to “play a full role, both inside its borders and on the global stage.”

“Without educated women, without women in employment, including in leadership roles, and without recognizing the rights and freedoms of one-half of its population, Afghanistan will never take its rightful place on the global stage,” said Guterres.

UN Undersecretary-General for Political and Peacebuilding Affairs, Rosemary DiCarlo, reiterated Guterres’ show of support to protect and amplify the voices of Afghan women.

In her statement, she summarized the Doha process, which was intended to increase international engagement with Afghanistan and the Taliban, wherein the Taliban were expected to make governance more inclusive and protect women’s rights, resulting in the international community easing restrictions in Afghanistan.

Unfortunately, the news of the morality laws has threatened that process, especially as the Taliban have refused to meet with Afghan civil society in previous meetings.

DiCarlo added that the Taliban “must begin to abide by their international obligations, especially regarding women.”

In the panel, American actor Meryl Streep remarked that Afghanistan granted women the right to vote in 1919, many years before countries like the United States and Switzerland had done the same. Much has changed since then, she observed.

“Today in Kabul, a female cat has more freedoms than a woman. A cat may go sit on her front stoop and feel the sun on her face. She may chase a squirrel into the park. A squirrel has more rights than a girl in Afghanistan today because the public parks have been closed to women and girls,” Streep said.

“The way that this culture, this society, has been upended is a cautionary tale for the rest of the world,” she warned. Streep further noted that the Taliban’s numerous edicts on women had “effectively incarcerated half the population.”

Meryl Streep introduced the screening of a short feature from Roya Sadat’s A Sharp Edge of Peace. Credit: IPS

The documentary follows the four women parliamentarians that participated in the peace talks in 2020 between the international community and the Taliban shortly after the United States withdrew their troops.

The feature highlighted the stakes that were on the line for the women leaders of Afghanistan. It included scenes of the parliamentarians listening to young women during consultations leading up to the peace talks in Doha, Qatar, where the young women pleaded for the Taliban not to take action that would restrict their rights and dignity. Prior to the peace talks, one of the women in the documentary said, “Peace is not a luxury. It is a necessity.”

What the documentary highlighted was that even with the (limited) presence of women leaders and advocates during negotiations, it evidently did not sway the Taliban to act in accordance with the demands from the international community.

The former deputy speaker of Afghanistan’s parliament, Fawzia Koofi, observed that the Taliban and the international community were largely in charge of the peace negotiations after the US pulled out of the country, leaving little room for the Afghan people or their elected government.

Habiba Sarabi, Afghanistan’s former minister for women’s affairs, remarked that the Taliban would only continue to push their agenda for what they perceived as a ‘pure Islamic regime’. She warned that this was already affecting younger generations who were at risk of being brainwashed by Taliban-controlled religious schools.

Sarabi implored the international community to hold up the UN Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), along with applying UN Security Council Resolution 1325 (2000), which calls for the protection of women’s’ and girls’ rights for peace and security.

Koofi also urged that more pressure needed to be placed on the Taliban, as this would be “the only leverage that the international community has.”

She called for the institutions and charters for international law and order to hold onto their solidarity with the people of Afghanistan and assure them that the “culture of impunity would end.”

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

An amendment to Bulgaria’s education law, passed last month, bans the "propaganda, promotion, or incitement in any way, directly or indirectly, in the education system of ideas and views related to non-traditional sexual orientation and/or gender identity other than the biological one."

By Ed Holt
BRATISLAVA, Sep 4 2024 (IPS)

A law banning the portrayal of LGBT+ identities in Bulgarian educational institutions is just the latest piece of repressive legislation in a wider assault on minorities and marginalized communities across parts of Europe and Central Asia, rights groups have warned.

The law, passed in a fast-track procedure last month, is similar to legislation passed or proposed in many countries across the region in recent years that restricts LGBT+ rights. 

And while the Bulgarian law is expected to have a harmful impact on children and adolescents in the country, it is also likely to be followed by legislation aimed at repressing other groups in society, following a pattern implemented by autocratic rulers across the region, activists say.

“Often anti-LGBT laws go hand in hand with other [repressive] legislation. One will come soon after the other. What this is all about is for certain political parties to concentrate and gain ultimate power for themselves. LGBT+ people and other marginalized groups are just scapegoats,” Belinda Dear, Senior Advocacy Officer at LGBT+ organisation ILGA Europe, told IPS.

An amendment to Bulgaria’s education law, passed on August 7, 2024 with a huge majority in parliament, bans the “propaganda, promotion, or incitement in any way, directly or indirectly, in the education system of ideas and views related to non-traditional sexual orientation and/or gender identity other than the biological one”.

Kostadin Kostadinov, chairman of the far-right Vazrazhdane (Revival) party that introduced the legislation, said that “LGBT propaganda is anti-human and won’t be accepted in Bulgaria.”

Critics say the law will have a terrible impact on LGBT+ children in a country where LGBT+ people already face struggles for their rights. In its most recent Rainbow Map, which analyses the state of LGBTQ+ rights and freedoms across the continent, ILGA Europe ranked Bulgaria 38 out of 48 countries.

“The teachers we have spoken to are really afraid of what is going to happen now. We are expecting to see a sharp increase in attacks and abuse of schoolchildren over gender and sexual orientation,” Denitsa Lyubenova, Legal Program & Projects Director at Deystvie, one of Bulgaria’s largest LGBT+ organizations, told IPS.

“The law has just been passed so we cannot be sure of its specific impacts just yet, but what we know from elsewhere is that laws like this in schools will impact children and adolescents, it will increase bullying and legitimize discrimination by other students, and even teachers,” added Dear.

Like other rights campaigners, Lyubenova pointed out the similarities between the Bulgarian law and similar legislation passed in other countries in Europe and Central Asia in recent years.

So-called ‘anti-LGBT+ propaganda’ laws were passed in Hungary in 2021 and Kyrgyzstan last year. These were in turn inspired by Russian legislation passed almost a decade earlier, which has since been expanded to the entire LGBT+ community and followed by laws essentially banning any positive expression of LGBT+ people.

Reports from rights groups have shown the harmful consequences of such legislation.

But while these laws have been roundly condemned by local and international rights bodies, political parties in some countries continue to attempt to push them through.

On the same day the Bulgarian law was passed, the far-right Slovak National Party (SNS) said it was planning to put forward a bill restricting discussion and teaching of LGBT+ themes in schools at the next parliamentary session in September.

Meanwhile, in June, the ruling Georgian Dream party in Georgia proposed legislation which would, among others, outlaw any LGBT+ gatherings, ban same-sex marriages, gender transition and the adoption of children by same-sex couples.

It will also prohibit LGBT+ ‘propaganda’ in schools and broadcasters and advertisers will have to remove any content featuring same-sex relationships before broadcast, regardless of the age of the intended audience.

In both countries, the proposed legislation comes soon after the implementation of so-called ‘foreign agent laws’ which put restrictions and onerous obligations on certain NGOs which receive foreign funding. Critics say such laws can have a devastating effect on civil society, pointing to a similar law introduced in Russia in 2012 as part of a Kremlin crackdown on civil society. The legislation, which led to affected NGOs being forced to declare themselves as ‘foreign agents’ has resulted in many civil society organisations in fields from human rights to healthcare being effectively shuttered.

Campaigners say it is no coincidence that anti-LGBT+ legislation and ‘foreign agent’ laws are being introduced closely together.

“[The anti-LGBT+ legislation] is likely to be the first in a series of laws that will discriminate against not just LGBT+ people, but other marginalized groups, which are seen as a ‘problem’ by far right organizations in Bulgaria,” said Lyubenova.

“This anti-LGBT+ law came from the Revival party, which has previously put forward bills for a ‘foreign agent law’ in Bulgaria. We are expecting a bill for foreign agent legislation to be introduced to Bulgaria’s parliament soon,” she added.

In Georgia, where legislation restricting LGBT+ rights will be debated in a final reading this month in parliament, civil society activists say the government is using one law to fuel support for the other.

“Both laws are part of the same, great evil [the government is pushing],” Paata Sabelashvili, a board member with the Equality Movement NGO in Georgia, told IPS.

Dear said the passing of ‘foreign agent’ laws was part of a template used by autocratic regimes to hold onto power “by dismantling civil society, which keeps a watch on politicians”.

The other parts of the template, she said, were to also “dismantle the independence of the judiciary, and the media”. Russia, Hungary, Georgia and Slovakia regularly score poorly in international press freedom indexes, and concerns have been raised about threats to media independence in Kyrgyzstan. Meanwhile, Russia is widely seen as no longer having an independent judiciary and concerns have been raised about government influence in the judicial systems in Slovakia, Georgia and Hungary.

Governments that have introduced these laws have said they are essential to preserve their countries’ traditional values and to limit foreign regimes—usually specifically western—influencing internal politics and destabilizing the country. These claims have been repeatedly rejected by the civil society and minority groups the laws are aimed at.

Some rights campaigners see the introduction of these laws as part of a coordinated international effort to not just spread specific ideologies but also entrench autocratic regimes.

While ostensibly the introduction of such legislation are the acts of independent sovereign regimes, campaigners say the politicians behind these laws are not necessarily acting entirely on their own initiative.

Activists in Slovakia and Georgia who have spoken to IPS highlight the strongly pro-Russian sentiments expressed by governing parties in their countries, while Hungarian prime minister Viktor Orban has been heavily criticized even among European Union officials for his closeness to the Kremlin and criticism of help for Ukraine since the start of Russia’s full-scale invasion of its neighbour. Meanwhile, Russia—as it does with many other central Asian countries—and Kyrgyzstan have historic ties dating back to the Soviet Union.

“These parties [behind these laws] have links to Russia. [Pushing through this kind of legislation] is strategically coordinated; it’s very well-planned,” said Dear.

“I believe this is all part of a wider trend linked to far right governments and/or parties,” Tamar Jakeli, LGBT+ activist and Director of Tbilisi Pride in Tbilisi, Georgia, told IPS.

Forbidden Colours, a Brussels-based LGBT+ advocacy group, linked the Bulgarian law directly to the Kremlin’s repression of rights in Russia.

“It is deeply troubling to see Bulgaria adopting tactics from Russia’s anti-human rights playbook,” the group said in a statement.

Meanwhile, international and Bulgarian rights groups have called on the EU to act to force the Bulgarian government to repeal the anti-LGBT+ law, while Bulgarian civil society organisations are getting ready to fight its implementation. There have been street protests against it in the capital, Sofia, and Lyubenova said her organisation was also preparing legal challenges to the law.

“What these far-right groups are doing with this law is they are testing our ability to stand up to hateful actions. We have to challenge it,” said Lyubenova.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau