By Saber Azam
GENEVA, Nov 2 2026 (IPS)

Émile Zola, the well-known French journalist, novelist, playwright, and key figure in theatrical naturalism, who played a significant role in France’s “political liberalization,” inspired me to speak out.

Saber Azam

I do not claim the knowledge, charisma, distinction, or public recognition of the renowned writer. Yet I use my pen and raise my voice to express my indignation at injustice and prejudice against humanity and to decry those who have turned the world into an explosive time bomb. The world’s tragic state must sicken all who care about humankind’s destiny. International law and order are frequently violated, and bloody, unlawful wars are waged. When countless innocent children, women, and men are regularly slaughtered; when space is at risk of militarization; when treachery becomes the “art of the deal” in every field; when rights, virtue, and decency are systematically violated; when bigotry is practiced everywhere; when conflicts become a source of enormous wealth for a few; when notorious criminals are protected; and when family and other human bonds are destroyed, every active conscience must awaken and act to stop the madness. Our world faces not only threats of insecurity, social and financial collapse, religious confrontation and wars, and climate disasters, but also serious moral decay and ruin. These crises worsen daily.

I do not intend to write literary pieces or politically acceptable articles, but rather to make my points known in plain language despite the risks. Therefore, I raise my voice and declare:

I Accuse the World Leaders

After World War II, the United Nations (UN) was established to “maintain international peace and security … take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace … develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples … achieve international cooperation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian nature, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion.” Thus, this body was created with a “world-loving” spirit.

To this end, the Security Council, a powerful 15-member body, was established to act on behalf of all countries to “[maintain] international peace and security.” Its resolutions are binding. Five “superpowers”—the United States, the Soviet Union/Russian Federation, China, the United Kingdom, and France—were granted not only permanent membership in this esteemed body but also the right to veto proposals before the Council. The rest of the world had to settle for the remaining ten seats, allocated for two-year terms according to an uneven geographic distribution. This arrangement glaringly disregards the historical injustices committed against hundreds of millions of indigenous populations across the Americas, Asia, Africa, the Oceanic Islands, and Australia, as well as the principle of majority rule.

At the same time, “with a view to the creation of conditions of stability and well-being which are necessary for peaceful and friendly relations among nations,” the 54-member Economic and Social Council was established under Article 60 of the UN Charter to strengthen cooperation among nations in social and economic development and in universal respect for human rights and dignity. Each member state serves on this body for three years.

On the legal front, the 15-member International Court of Justice was also established to peacefully resolve disputes among states. Each judge serves a nine-year term. Article 65 of the UN Charter provides that this institution will intervene “at the request of whatever body [Member States] may be authorized by or in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations” to file a legal complaint against another state.

With the above internationally recognized political, social, economic, and judicial structures in place to maintain and strengthen peaceful cooperation, there was hope that they would be used earnestly for their intended purposes; that wars and destruction would end; that future generations would live in peace; that social and economic progress would be equitable; and that all challenges would be resolved in accordance with the UN Charter.

By 17 September 2026, the five permanent members of the Security Council, primarily the former Soviet Union/Russian Federation and the United States, had vetoed at least 248 resolutions to protect their interests and those of their closest allies, ignoring the “world-loving” spirit of cooperation they had previously embraced.

Article 4 of the Charter ties UN membership directly to a state’s “peace-loving” nature and its willingness to accept the obligations set out in the Charter. Articles 5 and 6 authorize the Security Council to recommend preventive or enforcement measures to the General Assembly, including suspending or expelling a member state that consistently violates the Charter’s principles. However, since its establishment in 1945, no rogue member state has been expelled from the UN.

Article 52 of the Charter states that nothing precludes the establishment of regional peace and security entities, provided their aims and activities are consistent with the UN’s. The article therefore implicitly recommends that, on matters of peace and security, disputes between or among states, and social, political, and economic development, all countries use the diverse “world-loving” UN structures. However, repeated Soviet vetoes in the Security Council may have prompted the establishment of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in April 1949 and the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO) and Central Treaty Organization (CENTO) in February 1955. The Soviet Union requested NATO membership in 1954 but was denied. These regional military alliances certainly “pushed” the communist giant to establish the rival Warsaw Pact in May 1955, contributing to the Cold War and significantly diminishing the UN’s role in world peace and security.

Meanwhile, the Organization of American States was created in April 1948. The European Coal and Steel Community was established in April 1951, leading to the European Economic Community under the Rome Treaty in March 1957 and the European Union under the Maastricht Treaty in February 1992. These developments prompted other regions to establish their own structures to protect their interests. The Organization of African Unity was created in May 1963 and became the African Union in July 2002 under the Sirte Declaration. Other regional entities included the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (August 1967) and the Organization of Islamic Conference (1972), which became the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (June 2011). Additional military, political, and economic organizations of varying importance were created in other regions, including the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (April 1996), the Union of South American States (May 2008), and the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (December 2011).

The International Court of Justice has been largely ineffective. Superpowers pressure it to support their “preferred belligerent” in interstate conflicts. The International Criminal Court, established in 2002 despite a long history of calls for its creation to punish genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes, has been systematically hampered by powerful and wealthy countries from fulfilling its duties properly and consistently.

As a result, UN structures have failed to achieve peace, justice, prosperity, and progress for all, and most other entities have also fallen short of these objectives. The self-centered approach of influential countries, particularly the five permanent members of the Security Council, drives this flagrant disregard for the much-needed “world-loving” spirit of cooperation.

[To be continued]

Saber Azam is a former UN official. He is the author of Soraya: The Other Princess and Hell’s Mouth: A Journey to the Heart of West African Jungles. His third book, Nowhere to Go, will be published soon.

IPS UN Bureau

Excerpt:

This is the first article in a four-part series. The remaining three will follow.

Shirley Botchwey

By Shirley Botchwey
LONDON, Nov 2 2026 (IPS)

Ours is not a new realisation. The Commonwealth is responding to what world leaders have acknowledged for many years: ‘business as usual’ cannot reverse the unsustainable course the world finds itself, from economic to climate crises and the growing lack of trust in governance institutions, both national and multilateral.

Economic uncertainty, job insecurity and rising prices are leaving a generation of young people across the world unable to plan with confidence for their futures, while social protection systems are weakening under the burden of slow growth. AI is outpacing our ability to fully grasp its impacts or regulate it, creating as many threats as opportunities. For many, the promise of new technology brings a more immediate concern: whether they will have the skills, opportunities and security they need to build a decent future.

At the same time, increasingly severe weather is disrupting lives, livelihoods and food security, intensifying competition over scarce resources, fuelling conflict and contributing to growing patterns of migration. These pressures are interconnected. A climate shock can undermine a family’s livelihood; a lack of economic opportunity can drive migration; and weak infrastructure can make communities more vulnerable to both.

While many multilateral institutions are perceived to be paralysed in the face of the growing global fracture, the Commonwealth, because of its history of reaching consensus on the most intractable issues and its common values, has recognised this as its moment of opportunity. Its leaders have signalled support for changing track: asking the difficult questions and rallying around solutions that are bold, innovative and ambitious enough to respond to the expectations of the 2.7 billion people of the Commonwealth.

The Commonwealth is well-positioned for breakthrough. Our 56 countries span every region of the world and include some of its largest economies and populations and some of its smallest and most vulnerable states. We bring together different histories, experiences and perspectives, but also a shared commitment to cooperation. That diversity can be a strength: it allows us to connect countries and partners that might not otherwise sit around the same table.

That is why, at our leaders’ meeting this week on the Caribbean island of Antigua and Barbuda, Commonwealth countries, with their diverse histories, economies, and perspectives, will reinforce our new approach, our new direction.

Together, with Commonwealth businesses, development banks, international financial, trade and climate institutions, private investors and civil society as well as youth and women’s groups, we will create new partnerships and unlock investment. We want to turn the priorities identified by our countries into practical projects and action, focusing on climate, infrastructure, trade and the digital economy. The ambition is not simply to mobilise more money, but to make sure that finance reaches the projects and communities where it can have the greatest impact.

For the first time at a Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM), investors and development partners will be included in our substantive deliberations. No country can act alone in the face of today’s global challenges. Neither should any sector act alone. We need governments, development institutions and the private sector working together if we are to mobilise the scale of finance, expertise and innovation required.

Our new investment platform, launched last week ahead of CHOGM, is an important first step. It brings together 69 projects worth $34 billion across 20 countries and 10 sectors, with a particular focus on clean energy, transportation and logistics. It marks the start of a dedicated effort to connect Commonwealth countries with the investment and expertise they need to turn ambition into action.

But investment is only one part of the picture. Countries also need the right conditions to grow: access to markets, affordable finance, reliable infrastructure, digital connectivity and a workforce equipped with the skills needed for the jobs of tomorrow. That is why the wider agenda at CHOGM matters too.

CHOGM 2026 will see commitments from leading investors to support Commonwealth countries in areas including youth skills and entrepreneurship, science and innovation, and the transition to net zero.

This year’s meeting will also focus on making it easier for Commonwealth countries to trade with one another, developing a shared approach to sustainable debt and affordable finance for countries most vulnerable to economic and climate shocks, and setting out how we will build on this investment agenda in 2027.

Taken together, these efforts are about putting people at the centre of multilateral cooperation and shaping responses to the realities they face, rather than what the development cooperation agenda offers. It is about moving beyond declarations and towards partnerships that can deliver and ensuring that cooperation between countries results in opportunities for people and businesses.

The task now is to turn these commitments into something people can see and feel: a job created, a business grown, a community made more resilient, a young person given the skills and opportunity to build a future, a future driven by strong demand from a consumer market of 2.7 billion people.

That is what meaningful multilateralism should deliver. And with 2.7 billion people counting on us, there is no shortage of reasons to make it work.

Shirley Botchwey is Secretary-General of the Commonwealth.

IPS UN Bureau

Excerpt:

WFP warehouse workers unloading supplies in Haiti. Credit: WFP

By WFP
PORT-AU-PRINCE, Haiti, Nov 2 2026 (IPS)

Warnings by the United Nations World Food Programme (WFP) that Haiti’s fragile food security gains could quickly unravel are becoming a reality. New analysis indicates acute hunger in the country is continuing its upward trajectory and is set to reach record levels. Violence, economic instability, poor agricultural performance and displacement, along with the growing impact of El Niño, are driving this bleak outlook.

According to the latest analysis from the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC), 6.35 million people are likely to be acutely food insecure from March through June 2027. This is an increase of more than half a million people compared to the same period in 2026. Almost two million people within this group will likely face Emergency (IPC 4) levels of hunger – this means they are likely to experience severe food shortages and may resort to extreme measures to meet basic food needs.

The dire estimate follows WFP’s warning earlier this year that modest improvements, compared to earlier projections, remained fragile and that sustained support was essential to protect any progress against entrenched food insecurity. WFP is urging the international community to step up and help Haiti.

With more than 1.5 million Haitians forced to flee their homes, people living in areas controlled by armed groups as well as those taking shelter in displacement sites are particularly vulnerable. Displaced families are unable to work or grow their own food. Most live in unhygienic and overcrowded conditions. Even with humanitarian food assistance providing some level of safety net, families are struggling to secure a meal every day.

“Our teams are witnessing increasing levels of desperation as violence continues to displace families,” said Lauren Landis, WFP Country Director in Haiti. “Many have been displaced multiple times and are arriving with nothing but the clothes on their backs. This, combined with the conditions they’re forced to live in, creates conditions ripe for hunger and malnutrition to take hold.”

Hunger outside urban centers is also projected to deepen. Food insecurity across several rural areas expected to deteriorate from Crisis (IPC 3) to Emergency (IPC 4) levels from March-June 2027 when compared to the same period in 2026. El Niño is causing concurrent droughts and floods that are already reducing harvests and compromising farmers’ capacities to prepare for the next planting season. At the same time, agricultural and market supply chains are constrained by the presence of armed groups, making it challenging for farmers to deliver their products to local markets.

“This multifaceted crisis reminds us how important it is to not just provide life-saving emergency food assistance, but also to scale up longer-term investments that help communities withstand shocks and protect their livelihoods from events like El Niño,” said Landis.

So far this year, WFP has worked together with the Government to support 2.6 million Haitians with assistance including emergency food and cash transfers, school meals (74 per cent of which are made with food grown by local farmers), social protection programmes, and malnutrition prevention for babies and young children.

WFP also supports vulnerable communities through anticipatory cash transfers, the rehabilitation of water management infrastructure and rural roads, and micro-insurance that protects farmers against crop losses caused by drought or excessive rainfall.

WFP urgently requires USD 78 million to sustain these operations through March.

IPS UN Bureau

A delegate casts his ballot at the Human Rights Council elections held during the 20th plenary meeting of the UN General Assembly. Credit: UN Photo/Mark Garten

By Inés M. Pousadela and Victoria Ubierna
MONTEVIDEO, Uruguay / BUENOS AIRES, Argentina, Nov 2 2026 (IPS)

On 13 October, Burundi won a second consecutive term on the UN Human Rights Council, the UN’s main human rights body. The CIVICUS Monitor rates civic space in Burundi as closed, the worst category. Its government has spent years silencing civil society, critics and opposition parties, including through extrajudicial killings, forced disappearances and torture.

The Council was created 20 years ago to replace the Commission on Human Rights, which had lost credibility because states with poor rights records used their seats to shield themselves from scrutiny. Clearly, problems persist.

An election without choice

Burundi secured its seat because the vote was an election in name only. Each year, the UN General Assembly elects roughly a third of the Council’s 47 members, with seats allocated among five regional groups. The resolution that created the Council asks states to consider each candidate’s contribution to human rights and expects members to uphold the highest standards. But for the second year running, every regional group put forward exactly as many candidates as seats. All 15 candidates were elected, six for a second term. Burundi received 160 votes, the fewest of any candidate, a sign that some states withheld their support. With no other candidate standing, it made no difference.

This is a longstanding problem. The Council’s first election, in 2006, was the only one in which every regional group offered a choice. Of the 20 held since since, five, including the last two, featured uncompetitive slates in every group, and in most of the rest only one or two groups held a competitive vote. When there are no alternatives, even states with the worst records are guaranteed a seat.

Alongside Burundi, nine of this year’s 15 elected states have civic space rated as obstructed or repressed. In Jordan, Kuwait and Nigeria, people face serious risks when they speak out, organise or protest. Only six of the chosen states met most of the 17 criteria set out in the International Service for Human Rights’ scorecards, which include cooperating with UN experts and paying UN dues on time.

Selective scrutiny

The Council’s 63rd session, which ended on 7 October, showed what it can still do. Despite severe budget cuts, it renewed the mandates of the Special Rapporteurs on Afghanistan, Burundi and Russia, as well as the fact-finding missions on Sudan and Venezuela.

Many states, however, chose not to take sides, putting geopolitical calculations ahead of human rights principles. Three of the four country resolutions put to a vote saw high numbers of abstentions. On Sudan, the resolution stopped short of naming the foreign governments, notably the United Arab Emirates, that the UN’s fact-finding mission has identified as fuelling the war.

Other crises barely registered. In Bahrain, close to 300 people have been arrested for protests or social media posts since the start of the US–Israeli war on Iran, but the country received only a passing mention. Ecuador and India, which jail activists and attack journalists, received no attention, perhaps because both sit on the Council after being elected unopposed in 2025. Once again, the Council took no action on China, one of its members, four years after a UN report found that abuses against Uyghur people in Xinjiang may amount to crimes against humanity. Such silences reflect political choices by the Council’s members, many of which have little interest in strengthening scrutiny that could one day turn on them.

Reform deferred

The Council’s 20th anniversary offered a chance to fix some of these flaws, but states let it pass. In July, a long-awaited review kept the Council as a subsidiary body of the General Assembly, rather than one with the same standing as the Security Council, and the next review is not due before 2035. Meanwhile, Israel, Nicaragua and the USA have said they will not cooperate with the Council, part of the wider crisis of multilateralism documented in CIVICUS’s 2026 State of Civil Society Report.

States’ failure to pay their dues has also pushed the UN into a liquidity crisis, and its response, the UN80 efficiency drive, has brought deep cuts, disproportionately affecting human rights functions. The UN Human Rights Office’s regular budget is 10 per cent smaller than last year’s, and it has shed over 110 posts. Support has been cut for around a quarter of thematic Special Procedures.

Civil society is paying the price too. Restrictions introduced as temporary, including a cut in the number of written statements accredited organisations can submit, remain in place. Meanwhile, people who share information with the UN or speak at the Council risk detention, smear campaigns, surveillance and travel bans, yet only 10 states raised concerns about reprisals. If engaging with the UN becomes too dangerous, the Council will lose the first-hand evidence it needs to respond to abuses.

A world where 73 per cent of people live in countries with repressed or closed civic space needs a Human Rights Council able to respond to grave violations and protect those who speak out. Competitive elections, adequate funding and stronger civil society participation are required to make the Council the body it needs to be.

Victoria Ubierna is Research Programme Officer at CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation. Inés M. Pousadela is CIVICUS Head of Research and Analysis, co-director and writer for CIVICUS Lens and co-author of the State of Civil Society Report. She is also Professor of Comparative Politics at Universidad ORT Uruguay.

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

Lana Nusseibeh from United Arab Emirates, candidate for the position of the next Secretary-General, briefs reporters after the informal dialogue held with the candidates for the position of the next Secretary-General. Credit: UN Photo/Eskinder Debebe

By Oritro Karim
UNITED NATIONS, Oct 30 2026 (IPS)

As the race for the next UN Secretary-General moves forward, the campaign of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) Assistant Minister for Political Affairs, Lana Nusseibeh, has faced significant pushback over the country’s involvement in the ongoing Sudanese Civil War.

Over the past three years, the conflict in Sudan has deteriorated into one of the world’s most dire humanitarian crises, marked by mass civilian displacement and casualties, rampant human rights abuses, and widespread hunger. This month marks one year since the sharp escalation in hostilities in El Fasher following the siege by the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), during which civilians were subjected to severe human rights violations, persistent obstructions to humanitarian aid, and entire communities were displaced.

Extensive data from the UN, human rights organizations, and U.S. intelligence show that the UAE has been a major supplier of weapons, vehicles, and logistical support to the RSF. In July, Democracy for the Arab World Now (DAWN MENA) urged the UN General Assembly and member states to impose an immediate arms embargo on the UAE, citing grave acts of genocide targeting non-Arab communities in Darfur.

On October 21, the UAE announced that Nusseibeh would enter the race to become the next UN Secretary-General, seeking to succeed incumbent Secretary-General António Guterres following the completion of his second term on December 31. Nusseibeh has previously dismissed claims of Emirati involvement in RSF activities as “baseless,” describing them as disinformation to “deflect responsibility and undermine international efforts to address the humanitarian crisis in Sudan.”

On October 27, a press briefing brought together international policy experts, human rights advocates, and Sudanese survivors to discuss Nusseibeh’s campaign and its potential implications for the UN’s credibility and ability to protect civilians.

Speaking at the event, Ibrahim Alduma, a native of El Fasher and Chief Programs Officer at Sudan Action Hub, shared a personal account of the civilian toll the country experienced following last year’s escalation. Alduma recounted how his family was trapped in El Fasher when hostiltiies erupted, faced with persistent telecommunications disruptions, to the point where he didnt know if they were still alive. He also shared that his childhood friend was killed during the escalation, only to find out two days after the fact.

Alduma highlighted the U.S. government’s determination in February 2025 that the RSF had committed genocide and the following sanctions that were imposed on seven comapnies affiliated with the RSF, all of which were either based in or directly linked to the UAE.

“(Nusseibeh) is the one who was lobbying to remove UAE from the resolution of the European Parliament, and now she is like running for the for the United United Nations Secretary General. So, mainly when we talk about policy, I know that the world have known everything about what happened in Al Fasher, but the question is not if they’re informed or no,” Alduma said.

Kenneth Roth, former Executive Director of Human Rights Watch (HRW) and a speaker at the briefing, noted that while member states face growing pressure to elect a female Secretary-General, Nusseibeh’s late entry reflects a broader difficulty within the UN to reach a consensus. Roth described Nusseibeh’s candidacy as both “inappropriate” and “unsuitable.”

“At this stage, I think it’s really beyond dispute that the UAE was sending arms and mercenaries to the RSF. I think it’s fair to say the RSF would not have been able to be nearly as successful militarily as it was and has been without that support from the UAE,” said Roth. “After having basically put El Fasher under siege for some 500 days a year ago, it (the RSF) went in and just started slaughtering people. Another genocide, and the reason I think Lana Nusseibeh is an utterly inappropriate candidate for UN Secretary-General is that she denies this reality.”

Roth further noted that Nusseibeh’s repeated denial of the UAE’s involvement in RSF military activity is not based on factual findings, declaring that she will “destroy her credibility.” He compared her to former Secretary-General Kofi Annan, conversely describing Annan’s approach as firmly rooted in human rights and advocacy.

“We cannot afford to have the UN led by somebody who is a genocide denier, and indeed somebody who heads a government that has been aiding and abetting genocide, that is basically criminally complicit in that genocide, and she’s a lead person in covering that up,” said Roth.

Nathaniel Raymond, Executive Director of the Humanitarian Research Lab at the Yale School of Public Health, emphasized the role of Western intelligence in tracking the crisis. He highlighted that U.S. and British intelligence actively tracked and were aware of substantial levels of Emirati involvement, concluding that the UAE provided the RSF with the support needed to execute its human rights violations.

“For those of us who worked on El Fasher, we first warned El Fasher to the U.N. Security Council in a private briefing in July 2023 to see diplomats asking how we make sure this doesn’t happen again. It’s a slap in the face for the dead and for the survivors. Let’s be clear. It’s a second dehumanization of these people because it’s acting like somehow this is a murder mystery. That this is Colombo, this is murder,” said Raymond.

“The intelligence worked. The early warning worked. These people died for one reason, because their lives matter less than the diplomatic, economic, and security relationships between the U.S. and the U.K. with the U.A.E. That’s it. If you think there’s somehow a bigger thing here, there isn’t. That’s why they died: because they were just less important.”

IPS UN Bureau Report

Credit: UN Women/Samar Abu Elouf

By UN Women
NEW YORK, Oct 30 2026 (IPS)

More than 37,000 civilians were killed in conflict last year. Women and girls accounted for one in four of these deaths – double their proportion in 2021 – according to the 2026 UN Secretary-General’s report on Women, Peace, and Security, released today.

Approximately 750 million women and girls now live within 50 kilometers of an active conflict, 40 million more than in 2024, and more than at any time since 1990.

“More women and girls are trapped in wars than at any point in decades. Yet military spending keeps rising and development assistance keeps falling, even as investing in women’s leadership, conflict prevention, and peacebuilding has never been more urgent”, said UN Women Executive Director Sima Bahous.

For women and girls caught in war, the threat goes beyond bombs. Cases of conflict-related sexual violence verified by the United Nations nearly quadrupled between 2022 and 2025. War also drives women deeper into poverty and increases their unpaid care work. Around 170 million women and girls live in both conflict zones and extreme poverty, surviving on less than USD 3 a day. They account for almost 40 per cent of all women and girls living in extreme poverty globally. In conflict-affected countries, women and girls spend five times as many hours on unpaid domestic and care work as men and boys, double the global average.

These impacts are compounded by changing warfare and declining respect for international law. The increasing use of drones and long-range weapons in populated areas, including deliberate attacks on schools, markets, and hospitals – central to women’s daily lives – raises further safety concerns. Emerging AI-enabled military technologies add to these risks, particularly for women and girls already facing violence, displacement, and insecurity.

Even amid these challenges, women are working to protect communities and build peace.

“Every day, women around the world are working to end wars and build peace – protecting survivors, keeping communities together, and stopping violence before it starts. Their work is one of the best investments the world can make in peace”, continued the UN Women Executive Director.

Despite these contributions, the report shows that in 2025, women made up only five per cent of negotiators across 57 peace processes worldwide, down from seven per cent the year before.

Women’s exclusion from peace negotiations is compounded by a lack of investment in their work. Global military expenditure hit a record USD 2.9 trillion in 2025. Meanwhile, 40 per cent of women’s organizations in crisis-affected settings expect to shut down temporarily or permanently within the next year because of severe funding shortfalls. Women’s organizations are the backbone of lasting peace. They mediate local tensions, shelter the displaced, support survivors, and hold communities together. Their survival is essential to sustaining that peace.

UN Women calls for the protection of all women and girls and their rights, their meaningful participation in peace and security, and sustained investment in women-led conflict prevention and peacebuilding. We call for international law to be upheld and for an end to impunity.

IPS UN Bureau

Excerpt:

Credit: Shutterstock

By James Alix Michel
VICTORIA, Seychelles, Oct 28 2026 (IPS)

On 21 September 1976, less than three months after independence, Seychelles took its seat in the General Assembly of the United Nations. We became the 145th member of the Organisation. For a young nation of scattered islands in the Indian Ocean, with a small population and no army to speak of, it was far more than a ceremony. It was a promise that, in the family of nations, size would not decide whose voice was heard.

Fifty years later, I still believe in that promise. But I also know that it has never been kept automatically. It has to be renewed by every generation of leaders, and it now faces one of its hardest tests.

On 24 October, the United Nations marked its 81st anniversary. In his final United Nations Day message as Secretary-General, António Guterres reminded the world that the UN is not only an organisation but an idea: that humanity’s future depends on our ability to work together to advance peace, development and human rights.

Those words land at a sobering moment. Wars continue in several regions, often with civilians paying the highest price. The climate crisis is accelerating faster than our responses to it. Inequality is widening within and between nations. New technologies are advancing more quickly than our ability to govern them. And the UN itself is under severe financial strain, while its Security Council is too often paralysed by the very powers entrusted with keeping the peace.

It is in this climate that the Security Council is now deliberating, through its private straw polls, on who should become the tenth Secretary-General when Mr Guterres’s term ends on 31 December. For small island states, it matters more than most people realise.

Why should a small island care so deeply about who leads the United Nations? Because for nations like ours, multilateralism is not a matter of preference. It is a matter of survival.

We will never be the largest economies or the strongest military powers. Our protection has always been the rule of law, the strength of partnership and a seat at the table where every nation, large or small, has one vote. When the rules hold, a nation of just over 100,000 people can stand beside a nation of a billion and be heard. When the rules weaken, the small are the first to be pushed aside.

The UN has given small states some of their greatest achievements. The Law of the Sea gave island nations sovereign rights over vast ocean territories. The Paris Agreement set the aim of limiting warming to 1.5 degrees, a line that small islands fought hard to draw. And in January this year, the High Seas Treaty entered into force, bringing nearly two thirds of the world’s ocean, for too long a lawless frontier, under a framework for conservation and shared benefit. None of these would have been possible without the patient, often frustrating, work of multilateral diplomacy.

Yet I will not pretend the system is working as it should. A Security Council designed for the world of 1945 does not reflect the world of 2026. Africa, home to more than a quarter of the UN’s members, still has no permanent seat. Climate finance promised to vulnerable nations arrives slowly, in complicated forms, and often as loans that deepen debt.

The answer to an imperfect system of cooperation, however, is better cooperation, not less.

So what should the world, and especially its smaller nations, ask of the next Secretary-General?

First, courage. The Secretary-General has no army and a limited budget. The office’s greatest power is moral authority: the willingness to speak plainly to the powerful, to name injustice and to stand with those who have no other platform.

Second, the ability to build bridges. In a world divided between rival blocs, the UN’s leader must be trusted in Washington and Beijing, in Moscow and Brussels, but also in Victoria, Suva and Port Louis. Small states, which cannot afford permanent enemies, understand this better than most.

Third, a commitment to put the climate and the ocean at the centre of global security. For island nations, rising seas, coral collapse and extreme storms are not distant environmental issues. They are threats to our existence. In October, the International Union for Conservation of Nature warned that 96 percent of the world’s shallow-water coral reef ecosystems face an extremely high risk of collapse by 2075. Here in Seychelles, October storms have reminded us how fragile our coastlines and communities are. The next Secretary-General must treat the health of the ocean as the foundation of peace, food security and prosperity, and must ensure that the High Seas Treaty moves quickly from text to action as its first Conference of the Parties approaches.

Fourth, reform that people can feel. That means more than reorganising departments in New York. It must mean a fairer Security Council, a financial architecture that rewards resilience instead of punishing vulnerability, and a UN that delivers on the ground, where families, farmers and fishers live.

There is also a question of history. In 81 years, the United Nations has never been led by a woman. Without favouring any candidate, I believe it is time for the Organisation to show, at its highest level, the equality it rightly asks of its members.

Fifty years ago, Seychelles came to the United Nations as one of its smallest members, full of hope. We came because we believed that the ocean which surrounds us connects us to the world rather than isolating us from it. That belief has not changed.

The next Secretary-General will inherit a divided world and a weary institution. But they will also inherit the most important idea humanity has ever agreed upon: that our future is shared, and that no nation, however small, should face it alone.

Dialogue over division. Cooperation over confrontation. Solidarity over fear. Those words deserve to be more than a message for one day in October. They should be the test of the next ten years.

James Alix Michel is a former President of Seychelles, a Blue Economy pioneer and a champion of ocean protection.

IPS UN Bureau

By Mandeep S.Tiwana
NEW YORK, Oct 27 2026 (IPS)

Notwithstanding last minute shenanigans and the possibility of backroom deals by powerful states, two women from Latin America are leading contenders in the race for the UN’s next Secretary-General. After 80-plus years of men-only leadership, momentum is building to break the glass ceiling at the global institution dedicated to saving future generations from the scourge of war.

Design flaws in the somewhat opaque appointment process that bestow arbitrary veto powers on the five permanent UN Security Council members could, however, torpedo the aspiration for equitable representation for women at the helm for the world body. But there is still time to build public pressure on governments to do the right thing by appointing a feminist woman leader from Latin America and the Caribbean in deference to the principle of regional rotation.

UN in crisis

The next Secretary-General will preside over a fractious UN facing one of its hardest tests. Russia and the USA, which as Security Council permanent members are supposed to maintain international peace and security, are actively violating the UN Charter’s ban on aggression. Their ill-conceived invasions of Ukraine and Iran are causing large-scale death and destruction.

The USA has also recently imposed sanctions on the International Criminal Court, making it harder to pursue justice for the Israeli genocide of Palestinians and conflicts fuelled by powerful states in Congo, Sudan and Yemen. China, another permanent Council member, continues to provide cover for crimes against humanity committed by Myanmar’s brutal military junta, currently embroiled in a civil war against dissidents.

Demands on the UN are increasing. Over 100 million forcibly displaced people need the UN’s support. But the institution faces a deep financial crisis caused by delays in payments of dues by bigger countries and an unnecessarily complicated funding model. The funding crisis comes as the challenges are mounting up. Climate commitments are being undermined by fossil fuel lobbies and petrostates as the world hurtles towards tipping points. Repressive states are pushing to reverse hard-won human rights that the UN is supposed to protect, including sexual and reproductive freedoms for women. Some two-thirds of Sustainable Development Goals targets, which seek to promote social progress and better standards of living, are not being met, driven by a combination of inadequate resourcing and escalating attacks on civic space.

The UN needs a leader who can break the mould by being much more than a bureaucrat beholden to states. The next Secretary-General should seek to derive legitimacy by representing the needs and aspirations of over eight billion people around the world. With confidence in multilateralism at breaking point, the exercise of feminist leadership principles that combine active listening, courage, consensus building and empathy for victims of abuses, will be crucial.

She must be able to bravely stand up for the UN Charter and its commitment to human dignity and justice under international law. When Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev demanded that Dag Hammarskjöld resign as Secretary-General in 1960, he reminded the UN General Assembly that big powers are not the ones that need the UN for protection: “it is all the others.” In 2004, Kofi Annan had the courage to call the US invasion of Iraq illegal in a rebuke to US President George W. Bush.

Given the pressures, it may be a good idea for the next Secretary-General to declare they will stand for only one term, thereby avoiding the trap of being overly cautious towards the most powerful states in their first term so they can be re-elected. Security Council permanent members have shown they will block re-appointments if a Secretary-General does not do their bidding. In 1996, Boutros Boutros Ghali was denied a second term because of a US veto.

Civic engagement needed

A deep commitment to human rights and the quest for transparency, accountability and participation will determine how the next Secretary-General will be remembered by future generations in how approached this hard and often thankless job. Civic engagement should be at the heart of the UN’s agenda. Just 75 of 193 UN member states, accounting for only seven per cent of the world’s population, respect their people’s freedoms to organise, speak out and protest peacefully.

To start changing this, in her first 100 days, the next Secretary-General should appoint a UN Civil Society Envoy to drive the UN’s outreach to people and civil society around the world, elevate the issue of reprisals against activists who engage with the UN and highlight unfair blocking by states of civil society organisations that seek to participate in the UN’s work.

From the time of its founding in 1945 amid the ruins of war, oppressed people have looked to the UN to be the conscience of the world. In the second half of the 20th century, the UN, through leaders like U Thant, championed the aspirations of discriminated and colonised peoples for self-rule and dignity. The next Secretary-General should prioritise the voices of excluded peoples by bringing the voices of those on the sharp end of repression into rooms where decisions are made. She can build consensus the feminist way, by never letting a door close.

During the Cuban Missile Crisis in the early 1960s, U Thant kept communication channels open with both the world’s superpowers, proposed the standstill that helped pull the world back from the brink of nuclear war and then persuaded Cuban leader Fidel Castro to de-escalate the situation. The next Secretary-General’s moral clarity can shape the world of tomorrow. She must be mindful of the needs and aspirations of young people who have the greatest to gain from a functioning UN but have the least voice.

Her leadership must be bold, inventive and unafraid to fail. Dag Hammarskjöld invented the UN’s peacekeeping role during the 1956 Suez crisis, going beyond the UN Charter. He died in 1961 attempting to broker a ceasefire in the Congo. Kofi Annan publicly owned the UN’s failures in Rwanda and Srebrenica, then turned those lessons into the Responsibility to Protect. The world’s first woman Secretary-General must help the UN win back legitimacy and trust among the world’s people. To do that, she will need to be creative and not be constrained by tradition or fear of failure.

Mandeep S. Tiwana is the secretary general of civil society alliance, CIVICUS. He also serves as CIVICUS’s representative to the UN headquarters in New York.

IPS UN Bureau

IPS UN Bureau

Much of the world has been bemused by US President Donald Trump’s expectation of the Nobel Peace Prize. While aggressive towards most of the world, friend and foe alike, he has treated hostile nuclear powers more respectfully.

Jomo Kwame Sundaram

Outdoing every previous US president, Trump authorised over 500 bombings of ten countries in the first year of his second term.

Besides attacking Nigeria, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, Somalia, Syria, Yemen, and Venezuela, he also threatened Mexico, Cuba, Colombia, and Greenland with attacks. But Trump is not alone.

Every US president since World War II has committed war crimes, violating the UN Charter and the Geneva Convention. Over 4.5 million died in these wars, which created 38 million refugees in 2001-19 alone!

Trump believes he deserves the Prize. After he won the November 2024 presidential election, he pledged, “We had no wars for years…I’m not going to start a war. I’m going to stop wars…

“We will measure our success not only by the battles we win, but also by the wars that we end, and perhaps most importantly, the wars we never get into. My proudest legacy will be that of a peacemaker and unifier.”

Yet, Trump has also promised to build the world’s greatest military to achieve ‘peace through strength’, claiming he will not actually need to use it.

Barack Obama has acknowledged he does not know why he won the prize in the first year of his presidency. He then illegally bombed seven nations – Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Libya, Syria, and Iraq – without UN Security Council approval!

George W. Bush attacked five countries while Trump 2.0 not only ‘re-bombed’ Obama’s seven, but also surpassed him by adding Nigeria, Iran, and Venezuela!

After Biden gave tens of billions of dollars’ worth of weapons to Israel to ‘carpet bomb’ Gaza, Trump surpassed his predecessor’s generosity despite his contempt for him.

New US military strategy
Trump boastfully rebranded the US Defense Department as the Department of War at the start of his second term, to signal a more offensive and aggressive stance.

The latest US National Defense Strategy (NDS) sees NATO allies “strongly positioned to take primary responsibility for Europe’s conventional defense”.

The NDS envisages US control of the Panama Canal and Greenland, echoing Trump’s ‘Donroe doctrine’ for the Western Hemisphere, while claiming to avoid future interventions abroad!

In 2024, worldwide military spending totalled $2.7 trillion, with the US accounting for over a third! US spending then exceeded the aggregate expenditure of the next nine largest spenders, all Washington allies except for China and Russia.

Fortune magazine projects that the new US military spending target of $1.5 trillion will exceed the combined expenditure of the next 35 highest-spending countries!

The new NDS reasserts Trump’s claims that US allies took advantage of earlier Washington administrations to subsidise their own defence.

When Trump demanded, during his first term, that they spend at least 2% of GDP on the military, their responses were largely lukewarm. In 2025, NATO allies agreed with Trump to increase military spending to 5% of GDP!

The NDS asserts its War Department will be key to NATO “even as we calibrate US force posture and activities in the European theater” to focus on US priorities.

While reiterating “Russia will remain a persistent but manageable threat to NATO’s eastern members for the foreseeable future”, it envisages cutting US troops on Ukraine’s borders.

Unsurprisingly, the US’s NATO allies complain that Trump has created a ‘security vacuum’ undermining Europe’s confrontation of Russia.

China U-turn or American tai-chi?
The Biden NDS viewed China as the US’s main adversary. In contrast, Trump’s new NDS sees China as an established power in the Indo-Pacific region that only needs to be discouraged from dominating the US and its allies.

The goal “is not to dominate China; nor is it to strangle or humiliate them… This does not require regime change… Trump seeks a stable peace, fair trade, and respectful relations with China”!

Unlike Biden’s NDS commitment to “support Taiwan’s asymmetric self-defense”, the new NDS gives no assurances on Taiwan, although Beijing remains committed to reunification, by force if necessary.

Incredibly, it seeks to “open a wider range of military-to-military communications” with counterparts in China. Unsurprisingly, the US has since also eschewed new trade wars with China.

So why does Trump expect the Nobel Peace Prize? He probably sees himself as less belligerent than his predecessors to ‘near peer’ powers such as China and Russia.

Attacking and bombing ‘insignificant’ small non-nuclear powers probably does not matter to him. His attitude towards ‘shithole’ countries is similar.

Likewise, Trump claimed no one died when the US raided Venezuela on 3 January, apparently referring only to US fatalities, although over a hundred Latin Americans were killed!

IPS UN Bureau

A young protester holds a sign that reads ‘Listen to us’ in Paris, France, on 22 October 2026. Credit: Eric Broncard/Hans Lucas via AFP

By Andrew Firmin
LONDON, Oct 26 2026 (IPS)

Classrooms with mouldy walls, riddled with cockroaches and rats, stifling in summer and freezing in winter: this is how French high school students describe the places where they’re meant to learn. These impossible-to-ignore symbols of underfunding and neglect sparked a protest movement that has shaken the country.

Students’ complaints centre on underfunding, teacher shortages, crumbling infrastructure, crowded classrooms and an opaque university admissions system. These matter in their own right and raise broader questions about whose interests economies and governments serve, and what futures people can look forward to.

When high school students blockaded their schools, it struck a chord. University students quickly joined in. Within weeks, at least 250,000 people were on the streets, with teachers, trade union members and supporters of the left-wing France Unbowed (LFI) party among those joining in. The government opened a consultation platform for students, announced the release of fuel reserves and promised school improvement policies, but these limited concessions didn’t stop the protests. Meanwhile the message spread across Europe.

A continental wave

Students organised school blockades in several cities in Belgium, while in Italy, thousands took to the streets to demand increased education spending, better school buildings and action on the cost of living.

In Spain, the crisis of unaffordable housing has brought nationwide protests, with many young people to the fore. The trigger was the eviction of 87-year-old María del Carmen Abascal, known as Maricarmen, from the Madrid apartment that was her home for over seven decades, after the investment firm that bought her building pushed the rent up by over 230 per cent. Weeks of protests followed across Spain and Madrid’s Puerta del Sol filled with over 1,200 protesters’ tents. When right-wing parties blocked emergency housing legislation, Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez called a snap election.

In Portugal, thousands camped in public squares to protest at unaffordable housing, calling on the government to withdraw a draft law that will make it easier for landlords to evict tenants and end rent caps on new leases. In Greece, students protested against high student rents.

Protests have resurged in Albania. They were initially triggered by a luxury tourism development linked to the Trump family, which unleashed discontent over unaccountable politicians, oligarchical power and corruption. France’s protests gave the movement fresh impetus, with students mobilising against high education costs, poor university conditions and limited job prospects.

The triggers and demands of protest movements vary, but movements speak to a shared understanding among many young people that they aren’t being heard and growing economic difficulties aren’t being addressed.

Roots of a generational revolt

What has happened in France and other European countries is part of a broader global pattern. Young people expect few opportunities in economies that fail almost everyone but the super wealthy. They see bad public services get worse, including their schools and universities, while the cost of essentials soars, driven by the climate crisis and needless conflicts.

When young people leave education they enter impossible job markets and face handing over most of what they earn in rent. A housing crisis that has been bubbling up for years has become a mainstream issue. Private sector interests have turned a necessity into an object of financial speculation. Corporate landlords seek to extract as much rent as the market can bear and use their lobbying power to water down policies to control rents.

Many people view governments as not having the answers. In France, as elsewhere, the current plan is more economic austerity. Established centre-right and centre-left parties are widely seen as differing little.

At the same time, young people have seen the power of self-organising. Gen Z-led protest movements have arisen in many countries, motivated by anger at economic failures, corruption and unaccountable political power. In 2024, young people rose up in Kenya against a planned tax on essentials. In Bangladesh, young people protested against a quota that restricted entry to public sector jobs, toppling an authoritarian government.

In 2025, a ban on 26 social media platforms showed Nepal’s young people how out of touch their government was. Their protests ousted the prime minister, leading to an election that brought democratic change. This year, India’s Gen Z-led cockroach movement secured the resignation of the education minister over exam leaks and is now protesting against unfair changes to the electoral roll.

In 2025, Gen-Z led movements arose in countries as diverse as Madagascar, Morocco, Peru, Philippines, Serbia and Togo, among many others. Movements share remarkably similar characteristics, practising internal democracy and sharing inspiration, tactics and symbols across borders. When movements broaden their support beyond their origins, connecting with established groups and organisations, Gen Z remains at their heart, driving them forward.

Repression and political opportunism

Because they question the distribution of economic and political power, Gen Z-led protests have invariably been met with state violence. In France, Amnesty International has tracked the use of batons, teargas and mass arrests, including against children. On 7 October, amid public outrage, the government was forced to suspend the police’s use of stun grenades after a 15-year-old boy lost a hand. Police have detained thousands of under-18s.

Protesters have mobilised overwhelmingly peacefully, apart from isolated acts of vandalism. But cost-of-living protests joined by hundreds of thousands over the weekend of 17 and 18 October ended in much more significant violence, with rioting and looting in several cities.

With a presidential election due in April, politicians have been quick to capitalise on the violence. Government spokespeople sought to blame LFI, while far-right leader Marine Le Pen, who currently tops the polls, has blamed the violence on what she calls ‘anarchic immigration’. Donald Trump and the Russian government have done the same, while far-right politicians across Europe have followed her lead.

Protesters don’t want a far-right victory, and if France or other countries shift further rightwards, the blame won’t lie with them. Public anger that demands disruption and seeks to punish elites can be channelled towards far-right populist and nationalist ends when no better alternatives are on offer. Economic and political failures, in countries with large Gen Z populations, all but guarantee further protests. The political establishment must start listening and offer a more positive response.

Andrew Firmin is CIVICUS Editor-in-Chief, 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

Manvel Arzumanyan, retired veterinarian, says animal movements have been impacted by the conflict. Credit: Stella Paul/IPS

By Stella Paul
YEREVAN and SHIKAHOGH STATE RESERVE, Armenia, Oct 26 2026 (IPS)

Less than 100 metres from military positions facing each other across the Armenia-Azerbaijan border, the forest suddenly disappears.

On 22 October, I travelled to Shikahogh State Reserve, a biodiversity hotspot in southern Armenia near the Azerbaijan border. At one point I stood less than 100 metres from military positions facing each other across the frontier. Looking across the landscape, what struck me most was not the presence of soldiers but the absence of trees.

Large patches of hillside were barren, interrupting what should have been continuous forest cover. From several points inside the reserve, stretches of land appeared stripped of vegetation. Armenian military positions and Azerbaijani posts were visible across the landscape, reminders that one of the South Caucasus’ richest ecosystems now sits at the edge of a heavily militarised frontier.

The reserve, located in Armenia’s Syunik Province, was founded in 1958 and spans almost 30,000 acres, about 94 percent of which is forested.

It is home to rare animals such as the Caucasian leopard, the Bezoar ibex, the brown bear, the Armenian viper and numerous bird species. It also has 1,100 plant species (70 of which are listed in the IUCN Red Data Book) and is regarded by conservationists as one of the ecological jewels of the Caucasus.

Yet today, biodiversity is only part of the story.

Local Armenian officials, led by Marat Harutyunyan, Deputy Mayor of Kapan, the municipality closest to the reserve and the Azerbaijan border, said the environmental changes have become more visible since the 2022 fighting that affected parts of southern Armenia.

Harutyunyan alleged that Azerbaijani forces had cleared sections of forest for military positions and access roads. The full extent of this clearing has not been independently verified. Visible signs of tree cutting and earthworks could also be seen on the Armenian side near military installations, although officials declined to discuss their purpose or scale.

Vladik Agatelyan and Harut Marzynyan talk about the impacts of war on the locals’ livelihood and wildlife. Credit: Stella Paul/IPS

Competing Environmental Claims

While Armenian officials and local residents in Syunik have linked environmental changes in and around the Shikahogh State Reserve to militarisation and forest clearance, Azerbaijani environmental representatives argue that environmental concerns in the region extend beyond forest loss and should be viewed more broadly.

No Azerbaijani government officials were present at COP17 to respond directly to questions about conditions in Shikahogh. Azerbaijan is not participating in the conference. However, Amin Mammadov, co-founder of the Environmental Protection First (EPF) Coalition and Chairman of the Public Council under Azerbaijan’s Ministry of Ecology and Natural Resources, said Armenia was selectively drawing attention to environmental problems in the region.

Mammadov argued that while Armenian authorities focus on alleged deforestation and ecosystem damage in border areas, they have remained largely silent on what he described as pollution of transboundary rivers resulting from mining activities within Armenian territory.

Referring to a statement recently issued by the coalition, Mammadov said the group had called on the COP17 Presidency and participants in the Leaders’ Summit to encourage Armenia to adopt “concrete and measurable decisions” on the protection of transboundary rivers, improved management of mining operations, transparent environmental monitoring mechanisms, and public access to environmental information.

Another coalition member, Mugabil Bayramov, Chairman of the Azerbaijani Cartographers Public Union, said the group had prepared a Geographic Information Systems (GIS)-based digital map in 2024 titled Mineral Raw Materials Resources of the Republic of Armenia. According to Bayramov, the map identifies mineral deposits, mining enterprises and rivers allegedly affected by industrial pollutants.

The competing allegations highlight how environmental issues in the South Caucasus are increasingly intertwined with political tensions and unresolved disputes. Independent verification of many claims remains difficult because of restricted access, security concerns and the absence of comprehensive cross-border environmental monitoring.

Installations and clearing of a large tract of forests along the Armenia-Azerbaijan border at Shikahogh State Forest Reserve. Credit: Stella Paul/IPS

Livelihood Along a Militarised Border

Harutyunyan said Azerbaijani forces occupy several heights overlooking parts of the reserve and surrounding communities. According to him, that has changed how residents use the landscape.

“People are afraid to go to certain places,” he said, often due to the fear of landmines in parts of the border.

Vladik Agatelyan, a 60-year-old farmer, said a mine blast killed two of his cows. “The risks are too many, so I have stopped raising cattle,” he said. Some of his neighbours still do, but they no longer graze livestock closer to the forest.

Whether the danger is widespread or localised, fear itself appears to be creating a social and economic impact, as pastures are abandoned and traditional livelihoods are slowly disappearing. For example, Agatelyan’s wife, also a senior citizen, took up a job to teach in a village school as income from their farm declined.

“The salary is very small (100 dollars a month), but it helps us to get by,” he said.

A Wildlife Corridor Under Pressure

Among those concerned about the reserve’s future is Manvel Arzumanyan, a retired veterinarian in his seventies. For decades, he worked with livestock in the region and closely observed the surrounding landscape. He remembers a time when bears, wild goats and other species moved freely through the forests and mountains around the village. The area, he said, served as an important ecological corridor linking habitats across Armenia, Azerbaijan and Iran.

Today, such sightings appear less frequent.

Harut Marzynyan, a zoologist at Shikahogh State Reserve who oversees wildlife monitoring, echoed his observations. Marzynyan said the conflict has made fieldwork increasingly difficult, limiting researchers’ ability to track animal movement and conduct regular surveys.

He noted that expanding roads, military infrastructure and fragmented landscapes can disrupt wildlife corridors and isolate animal populations. However, the reserve has been unable to carry out comprehensive studies because of security concerns and restricted access linked to the conflict.

Evidence From Another Frontline

The concerns emerging from Shikahogh are difficult to quantify. But scientists studying other conflict zones say the patterns sound familiar.

George Mitri, Professor of Environmental Sciences at the University of Balamand in Lebanon, said the environmental footprint of the ongoing Israel-Hezbollah conflict extends far beyond areas directly affected by fighting. More than 11,000 hectares have been affected by conflict-related fires, while thousands more hectares have suffered damage from explosions, military activity and vegetation loss.

“The ecological impact of war on biodiversity is much broader than the area directly affected by bombing,” Mitri told IPS.

Similar concerns emerged during an interview with Jen Maman, Senior Policy and Campaign Strategist at Greenpeace, the international environmental campaigning organisation.

Drawing on Greenpeace assessments and partner research, Maman said at least 65,000 olive trees have been burned during recent hostilities in southern Lebanon.

She said environmental damage extends beyond forests to include agricultural land, water resources and soil quality.

Maman also highlighted concerns surrounding the use of white phosphorus, which can ignite vegetation and potentially leave pollutants in soils and water sources. Maman shared some investigations that found elevated concentrations of phosphorus and heavy metals in some affected areas of Lebanon, raising concerns about long-term environmental impacts.

According to Maman, the consequences extend well beyond biodiversity. Environmental destruction has affected agriculture, fisheries, livestock production and food security, illustrating how ecological damage can quickly become an economic and humanitarian crisis.

Restoring Nature After Conflict

According to Mitri, meaningful restoration is an urgent need and must begin with “systematic documentation through satellite imagery, photographs, field surveys and scientific assessments”. Those records are critical not only for understanding the scale of destruction but also for future accountability and recovery efforts.

“Restoration must involve a wide range of specialists, including ecologists, biodiversity experts, hydrologists, soil scientists and toxicologists, to understand habitat loss, contamination and ecosystem disruption,” he said.

Displaced residents often possess detailed knowledge of ecological changes occurring in their landscapes and can provide information that may not appear in scientific datasets.

“The community has to be re-established where they were,” Mitri said, arguing that environmental recovery and community recovery are inseparable.

COP17: The Missing Finance Conversation

Restoration, however, raises another question that remains largely absent from international biodiversity negotiations: who will pay for it?

Restoring conflict-damaged ecosystems can require substantial investments in mine clearance, soil remediation, habitat restoration, reforestation, biodiversity monitoring and support for affected communities.

Mitri argues that environmental assessments must eventually be linked to compensation mechanisms, recovery planning and international financial support if damaged landscapes are to have a realistic chance of recovery.

Yet despite growing evidence of environmental destruction caused by armed conflicts in Lebanon, Gaza, Ukraine and the South Caucasus, conflict-related ecosystem restoration remains largely absent from biodiversity finance discussions.

At COP17, governments are debating how to mobilise billions of dollars to implement the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. But despite a packed COP agenda with 50 items, there is little discussion of dedicated funding mechanisms for ecosystems damaged by war or of how affected countries and communities should finance their recovery.

An Overlooked Threat to Biodiversity

At COP17, Astrid Schomaker, Executive Secretary of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), declined to comment directly on the Armenia-Azerbaijan environmental dispute. However, during the conference’s opening ceremony, she stressed the broader significance of biodiversity loss.

“No nation, no economy, no society is immune from the impacts of biodiversity loss,” Astrid Schomaker told delegates. She also warned that “even the best decisions that you will take at this meeting will be meaningless if there is no capacity to implement, monitor, make informed decisions and manage risks.”

As negotiations enter their crucial second week, it remains unclear whether the environmental consequences of armed conflict and the challenge of restoring ecosystems affected by it will receive greater attention in biodiversity negotiations.

Yet for communities living along contested borders, the impacts are already visible. In Shikahogh, trees have disappeared from parts of the landscape, access to land has become more restricted, and residents describe livelihoods that are increasingly difficult to sustain.

For many conservationists, scientists and communities living in conflict-affected regions, the lesson emerging from Armenia, Lebanon and other frontlines is increasingly clear: biodiversity protection cannot be separated from the environmental costs of conflict.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Excerpt:

8 November 1996
Graca Machel (left), former Minister of Education of Mozambique and the Secretary-General's appointed Expert on the Impact of Armed Conflict of Children, presents her report titled "The United Nations Report on the Impact of Armed Conflict of Children" to the Third Committee. Right is Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali. Credit: UN Photo/Evan Schneider

By Mikiko Otani
TOKYO, Japan, Oct 23 2026 (IPS)

WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind. The United Nations was established with this commitment.

Children, while constituting nearly a third of humanity, are disproportionately affected by war. Yet, children’s voices are rarely heard and children are largely absent from peace processes.

From Machel to Security Council Resolution 2427

Graça Machel, thirty years ago, in her groundbreaking report “Impact of Armed Conflict on Children” already told the United Nations: “clearly the most effective way to protect children is to prevent the outbreak of armed conflicts”; “All people need to feel that they have a fair share in decision-making,” emphasizing that young people should be seen as “active participants in creating solutions, not just as victims”.

The need for child participation was emphasized in the Paris Principles and Guidelines on Children Associated with Armed Forces or Armed Groups (2007). While the participation of children received less attention in the original Machel report, it was highlighted as an important issue in the 10-year strategic review (2009), having an entire chapter devoted to “Children as Peacemakers”. This recognition was followed by Security Council resolution 2427 (2018), which called on Member States and the UN system “to ensure that the views of children are taken into account … throughout the conflict cycle”, and to fully incorporate and prioritize “empowerment” of children in the post-conflict recovery, reconstruction and peacebuilding processes, taking into consideration the views of children.

Participation: a child’s right and a driver of peace

Participation is a right of the child under the most widely ratified Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989). Children must be heard and have their views given due weight in all matters that affect them, including in the conflict context. Children’s participation is critical for conflict prevention, their protection in the conflict, recovery, reintegration and reparation. Children can also play an important role in bringing divided, torn communities together, as catalysts for social cohesion and building peace.

The momentum has been building for a further call for participation of children. The Security Council heard the views of a former child soldier from Colombia (2018), a 15-year-old girl from Mali (2020), and an 18-year-old peacebuilding activist from Cameroon (2023). All three speakers called for the participation of children.

In this year of special importance for children affected by conflict, 30th anniversary of the creation of the children and armed conflict mandate by the UN General Assembly, the Human Rights Council strengthened the scope of the call for child participation in its resolution 61/21 devoted to the rights of the child affected by armed conflict. It invites States to ensure the meaningful participation of children affected by armed conflict in the design, implementation, follow-up and evaluation of policies and programmes throughout the conflict cycle, including conflict prevention, peace and post-conflict processes, including protection, justice, accountability, reparation and recovery.

This resolution is particularly significant. Twenty-four children aged 12-17 from 10 countries in conflict situations shared their views in a consultation with the European Union, one of the penholders, and many of their recommendations helped shape the resolution (Child Rights Connect, meeting report and Child Friendly Guide, 2026).

The children and armed conflict agenda, deeply embedded in the Convention on the Rights of the Child as a basis for the Machel report, established by the General Assembly, strengthened by the Security Council, is now complemented by the Human Rights Council from the child rights perspective. This is very much in line with the call of the UN Secretary-General’s Guidance Note (2023) for mainstreaming child rights throughout the whole UN system including the peace and security pillar.

Three recommendations for the next steps

First, UN mechanisms, States and civil society should support and strengthen partnership with children and young people to make meaningful participation of children a reality. Second, children should be included in the Conference commemorating the 20th anniversary of the Paris Principles to be convened by France with UNICEF in February 2027, highlighting the transformative role that children associated with armed forces and armed groups can play as rights holders and agents of change. Third, children’s participation should be supported in the global peacebuilding architecture and space, starting from the annual peacebuilding week in June 2027, the beginning year of the International Decade of Strengthening of Peace for Future Generations (2027-2036) proclaimed by the General Assembly resolution 80/269 (2026).

Dr. Mikiko Otani, widely recognized as an international human rights lawyer, is currently the President of Child Rights Connect, a Geneva-based global NGO network promoting child rights. She was the Chair of the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child (2021-2023) during her eight-year membership for two terms.

IPS UN Bureau

Credit: United Nations

By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Oct 23 2026 (IPS)

The international day for the eradication of poverty, commemorated last week, was a grim reminder that the UN will not achieve its highly-ambitious target of helping eradicate extreme poverty—”in all its forms”– by 2030.

According to Secretary-General Antonio Guterres eradicating poverty by 2030 requires urgent political will, massive investments, and a commitment to justice rather than charity.

But that is unlikely to happen by the targeted date?

UN Deputy Spokesperson Farhan Haq told reporters last week the message to donors is that there is a crucial importance towards focusing aid on eliminating poverty as much as possible.

“It’s a disgrace that so many people – really, hundreds of millions of people around the world – still face acute poverty. Because of that, and because there’s still such a large gap in the needs that are to be addressed, it’s unlikely that we’re going to meet the targets by 2030. But the Secretary-General, as you know, continues to push for determination. The idea being, as he puts it, that he is neither hopeful nor pessimistic, but determined. And that’s what we have to do in the fight against poverty.”

Guterres has described poverty as an “insult” to human dignity, a denial of fundamental human rights, and an issue of social justice.

In 2026, an estimated 826 million people (or 1 in 10 people worldwide) were living in extreme poverty. If current trends continue, 9% of the world’s population will still live in extreme poverty by 2030.

Richard Ponzio, Director of the Global Governance, Justice & Security Program and a Senior Fellow at the Washington-based Stimson Center, told Inter Press Service (IPS) ending poverty in all its forms everywhere by 2030 is Goal #1 of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

“While we saw tremendous progress on a similar Millennium Development Goal poverty alleviation effort from 2000-2015 — thanks in large part to advances in two large developing countries at the time (China and India) — we have seen less progress overall during the present period (2015-2030) for multiple reasons, including growing debt burdens, the COVID-19 pandemic, continued environmental degradation, and the drag on global economic growth stemming from tariffs and new major wars.”

Despite these obstacles, he pointed out, the Secretary-General and his UN system’s continued determination to fight acute global poverty merits the support and commensurate levels of commitment and determination by the world body’s 193 member states.

In the run-up to next September’s SDG Summit in New York, international efforts, including innovative developments strategies and new financing approaches, should be redoubled in support of the “No Poverty” SDG — while ensuring that steps to eradicate extreme poverty remain a central plank of an emerging Post-2030 Development Agenda, he declared.

Max Lawson, Oxfam International’s Head of Inequality Policy, told IPS extreme poverty can be ended by 2030—“but only if we radically reduce inequality.”

“Right now, for every new dollar of wealth created in the world, the richest one percent pocket 41 cents ―and the entire bottom half of humanity gets just a single cent. While everyday people are hit hard by rising prices, wars, and pandemics, billionaires have more than doubled their fortunes,” said Lawson.

According to one report, poverty has many dimensions. Its primary causes include unemployment, social exclusion, and the high vulnerability of certain populations to disasters, disease, and other crises that prevent them from earning a productive living.

The UN’s SDGs are a collection of 17 global goals and 169 specific targets adopted by UN Member States in September 2015 under the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development

These goals also include an end to worldwide hunger, the need for quality education, good health and well-being, among others.

Anuradha Mittal, Executive Director, The Oakland Institute, told IPS: “As we look for solutions to end poverty, we need to focus on the causes of poverty.”

The international day for the eradication of poverty should be the day to eradicate wars around the world, she argued.

Global military spending continues to rise. Trump’s proposed defense budget for 2027 – a record high of US$1.5 trillion, nearly doubling the 2023 budget – is in line with projections estimating global military spending could reach $6.6 trillion by 2035.

The buildup of the military industrial complex comes at the expense of common good. A small fraction of annual military budgets – less than $300 billion could help eliminate extreme poverty. $93 billion per year – less than 4% of yearly global military spending – could help address global hunger, she said.

Today, over half the world’s 1.1 billion poor live in conflict situations. War diverts necessary funds for public health, education, and social safety nets. Destruction and pillage of war manufactures poverty and then maintains it,” said Mittal.

Danielle Nierenberg, President and Founder, Food Tank, told IPS “determination is good but in order to be effective, we need to have courage.”

With the cutbacks to international aid including the systemic dismantlement of USAID, we need to stand up to those who the aid is a waste of money, she said.

Millions of people are dying unnecessarily when only a very small percentage of rich countries budgets could help save them. Aid benefits us all—it’s not only the moral thing to do, but it helps strengthen national security, declared Nierenberg.

Frederic Mousseau, Policy Director at the Oakland Institute, told IPS focusing on “donors” to address the poverty and climate crises that the world faces today is misdirected.

Poverty goes hand in hand with growing inequities and cannot be addressed separately. There is plenty of money to go around to solve both these crises.

According to Oxfam, US$9 trillion could be raised just from increasing taxes on the wealth and income of the top one percent richest people and the profits of 722 of the world’s biggest corporations.

As the wealth of the billionaires and the largest corporations keeps increasing to insane levels, there is no other way to address poverty than to tax it. The UN should lead the way on an international tax reform that will allow a redistribution of the wealth towards the poor and the adaptation to the climate crisis, declared Mousseau.

According to the SDG 2026 report, poverty has many dimensions. Its primary causes include unemployment, social exclusion, and the high vulnerability of certain populations to disasters, disease, and other crises that prevent them from earning a productive living.

Why should I care about other people’s economic situation?

There are many reasons, but the simplest is that as human beings, our well-being is deeply interconnected. Growing inequality hurts economic growth and undermines social cohesion. This raises political and social tensions and, in some circumstances, drives instability and conflict.

Why is social protection so important?

Strong social protection systems are essential to cushion the blow of economic shocks and prevent vulnerable families from falling into poverty.

While social protection measures did expand during the COVID-19 crisis, approximately 46% of the world’s population—about 3.8 billion people, including 1.4 billion children—remained entirely unprotected in 2023.

In response to the subsequent cost-of-living crisis, 105 countries and territories announced nearly 350 social protection measures between February 2022 and February 2023. However, 80% of these programs were only short-term. To truly achieve the SDGs, nations must build permanent, universal, and sustainable social protection systems for all.

The contribution of science to end poverty has been significant. For example, it has enabled access to safe drinking water, reduced deaths caused by water-borne diseases, and improved hygiene to reduce health risks related to unsafe drinking water and lack of sanitation.

• If current trends continue, 9% of the world’s population may still live in extreme poverty by 2030, and only one in five countries will succeed in halving their national poverty levels.
• In 2025, 7.9% of the global workforce (284 million workers) lived in extreme poverty, down from 11% in 2015.
• For the first time on record, over half of the world’s population receives at least one social protection benefit. Despite this milestone, 3.8 billion people remain completely uncovered.
• Development aid focused on poverty reduction has fallen sharply, erasing a decade of progress and returning to 2015 levels.
• Advanced economies spend a significantly higher share of government budgets on essential services (like education, health, and social protection) compared to emerging and developing nations.
• Guaranteeing basic social security floors in low- and middle-income countries requires an additional $1.4 trillion annually, equal to 3.3% of their combined GDP in 2024.

Source: The Sustainable Development Goals Report 2026

IPS UN Bureau Report

Communities face multi-layered crises in Afghanistan, including underlying poverty, climate-related shocks and the aftermath of four decades of conflict. Credit: UNAMA/Ahmad Khalid Khaliqi

By Oritro Karim
UNITED NATIONS, Oct 21 2026 (IPS)

In recent months, Afghanistan’s humanitarian crisis has severely deteriorated, with the UN reporting record-high levels of acute malnutrition and hunger. Compounded by rampant human rights violations, limited access to basic services, and persistent barriers to humanitarian aid, the UN warns that conditions could considerably worsen in the coming months.

The latest figures from the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC) show that approximately 15.9 million people—32 percent of the analyzed population—are currently facing Crisis-levels of hunger (IPC Phase 3) or worse. Of those, roughly 3.4 million face Emergency-levels of hunger (IPC Phase 4), just one step away from the highest level, which could entail the onset of famine.

IPC projects that food insecurity could surge from November to April during the winter lean season. As agricultural activity slows down, unemployment remains widespread, and harsh weather hinders aid delivery and basic services, IPC estimates that nearly 19.2 million people—including 10 million children—could face Crisis-levels of hunger or worse, with 5 million at risk of Emergency-levels of hunger.

The World Food Programme (WFP) and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) warn that food assistance, agricultural support, and healthcare operations must be scaled up ahead of the winter season. WFP Country Director John Aylieff stressed that the “window to act” is rapidly closing if families are to survive the winter “with dignity.” Meanwhile, FAO Representative Richard Trenchard underscored that creating dependable income is essential in preparing communities to withstand future shocks.

Ashish Damle, Save the Children’s Country Director in Afghanistan, warned that the country is trapped in a “deadly” hunger crisis with “no end in sight,” as humanitarian needs rise while critical aid funding dries up. Young people are projected to bear the heaviest burdens, as roughly 4.04 million children under five will require treatment for acute malnutrition in 2027—a 9 percent increase from 2026. Severe acute malnutrition is forecast to surge by 16 percent in the coming year, rising from 942,000 in 2026 to 1.1 million in 2027.

With winter approaching, Damle stressed that harsh weather conditions will make survival even harder for children already facing acute malnutrition.“Our doctors and nurses witness the devastating consequences of the hunger crisis every day: malnourished children arriving at our clinics, mothers going hungry so their families have something to eat, and parents desperately seeking help as their children’s health deteriorates,” said Damle.

Despite recent rainfall improvements and promising harvests, widespread unemployment and weak purchasing power still keep adequate nutrition out of reach for most families, even when it is available. Conditions are compounded by the return of over 1.2 million Afghans from Iran and Pakistan in 2026, further stretching already limited resources.

“I saw firsthand that this crisis is not simply about whether food exists, but whether people can afford it, whether they can earn an income, access basic services, or whether they have anything left to fall back on when the next shock comes,” said Olga Cherevko, Spokesperson for the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA). She added that years of conflict, economic instability, and climate shocks have severely eroded community resilience, leaving families with little capacity to adapt to new shocks.

Cherevko highlighted the Taliban’s systematic exclusion of women and girls from education and public life as a primary driver of the crisis. Figures from the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) show that Afghanistan stands to lose up to 20,000 women teachers and 5,400 female health workers by the end of the decade. She emphasized that barring women and girls from society has alarming implications for access to healthcare, dietary diversity, education, and the ability to sustain livelihoods.

On October 15, the UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) issued a report detailing the persistence of human rights abuses between July and September. During this period, UNAMA documented over 50 cases of women arrested or detained relating to the hijab. Women continue to be barred from accessing health clinics and markets without a male guardian (mahram).

The mission also recorded around 443 cases of arbitrary detention and 97 instances of ill-treatment over minor infractions such as hijab violations, trimmed beards, skipped prayers, and listening to music. It further documented public corporal punishments of 28 individuals, including six women, and the detention of 14 former security force members, with at least four others killed.

Beyond individual rights, Afghanistan has also experienced a severe breakdown of civic space conditions over the past year, marked by the arbitrary suspension of multiple media outlets without clear reasons or opportunities for appeal. New legislation enacted in August bans all demonstrations and protests, effectively silencing civilian dissent across the country.

Cherevko emphasized the need for sustained, expanded humanitarian aid while calling for strategic investments in long-term resilience. She highlighted agriculture, rural livelihoods, local markets, employment, water systems, and health services as key areas for investment, stressing that expanding opportunities for women in the workforce is essential in building communities that are less dependent on emergency assistance.

“We cannot keep asking humanitarian aid to compensate indefinitely for the absence of economic opportunity and essential public services. We must act before winter, not after families have exhausted their options,” said Cherevko.

Ground operations remain significantly constrained due to persistent funding shortfalls. According to OCHA, as of mid-September, the agency had received just 31 percent of the funding needed to support Afghanistan’s 21.9 million vulnerable people. Earlier in August, WFP warned that these shortfalls had forced nutrition programs to scale back when they are needed the most, leaving more children at risk of being malnourished.

Despite these shortfalls, the UN and its partners continue to work on the ground to deliver emergency and essential services, reaching roughly 8.3 million people with at least one form of assistance between January and July.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Top: Annual Meetings of the IMF and the World Bank inside the Queen Sirikit Convention Center in Bangkok Credit: (IMF photo/N.Karlin).
Bottom: Opening of the People’s Assembly.

By Isabel Ortiz
BANGKOK, Thailand, Oct 19 2026 (IPS)

Bangkok hosted two summits last week. Inside the Queen Sirikit Convention Center, more than 15,000 finance ministers, central bank governors and CEOs of the world’s largest banks and corporations attended the Annual Meetings of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank. They flew in business class and slept in five-star hotels to talk about growth, inflation and public spending, and thus to decide the destiny of billions of people they will never meet. Outside, hundreds of social movements and civil society organizations held the People’s Assembly, for the 99% whose voice would not be heard. They flew economy and often shared modest rooms. The first was the summit of money and power. The second, the summit of the rest of us.

Isabel Ortiz

The IMF report World Economic Outlook lifts global growth to 3.1% for 2026 on the back of investment in artificial intelligence (AI), a boom confined to only a handful of countries and a technology the IMF itself says will affect 40% of jobs worldwide, and that a third of jobs in high-income countries are at risk to be replaced by IA.

Both institutions presented private finance as the engine of development: the World Bank’s Development Committee agenda in Bangkok was centered on mobilizing private capital with public guarantees. In plain language, subsidizing large corporations with public money while prescribing cuts to the public services ordinary people depend on.

No communiqué was agreed in any ministerial committee. The corridor talk was how far both institutions have bent to the will of Washington: directors replaced (at the World Bank by private sector executives, most with no development experience); work on climate and gender shelved; and, above all, the chainsaw of Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency applied worldwide, with the myth that tax cuts for the wealthy and austerity cuts that impoverish the working and middle classes are necessary.

Outside the convention center, the story was completely different. The People’s Assembly worked through the alternatives in over 50 sessions to formulate a new system accountable to people and planet, not to the 1%. Behind them stand nearly 400 million people: 200 million small farmers of La Via Campesina, 191 million workers of global unions, and tens of thousands of civil society organizations. There were protests in Bangkok, and in more than 150 cities across 38 countries, including Argentina, Congo, Germany, India, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, Uganda and the United Kingdom, with people marching peacefully under banners such as “We are the 99%” or “Tax elites and corporations” reflecting the aims:

• Tax the 1% not ordinary people: Progressive taxes on wealth, large corporations and big tech, and an end to tax havens, with an equitable UN tax convention, instead of consumption taxes and other taxes squeezing the working and middle classes.
• End austerity cuts: Public services and social protection for all; fund the right to health, education, social security, housing, water, instead of privatization and public private partnerships that shift costs to people.
• Debt justice: No country should cut health or education to pay creditors as happens in 51 countries today; audit and cancel illegitimate debts, end IMF surcharges and loan conditions, and a UN framework convention on sovereign debt instead of restructurings run by creditors.
• Climate justice: Make polluters pay, phase out fossil fuels, and a just transition.
• Democratize global economic governance: The IMF and World Bank are not the solution but part of the problem, as a few rich countries (and their corporations) hold most of the voting power (and only the US has a veto); move decisions on debt, tax and finance to the UN, where every country has one vote.
• Gender justice: Women are half of the world population but just an afterthought for policy makers, gender-responsive policies and budgets, public services, redistribution of care work.
• Decent jobs: Employment respecting international labor standards and living wages, union rights and protection for migrant workers.
• Food sovereignty, fair crop prices for farmers, agroecology instead of agrobusiness, land rights for indigenous peoples and small farmers, and rights guaranteed by the UN Declaration on the Rights of Peasants.
• Industrialization of developing countries, oriented to domestic and regional markets, instead of exporting raw materials and importing everything else.
• No more corporate impunity, promotion of private finance and privatization: public services can be funded by taxing the 1%, a binding UN treaty on business and human rights, and fair trade rules instead of investor-state arbitration that lets corporations sue governments.
• AI: Slow down and put AI under public control, binding public regulation of AI covering data harvesting, manipulation of public opinion, job destruction, civil liberties and environmental damage.
• Stop authoritarianism and the far-right: Defend civic space, Human Rights and democratic institutions against the authoritarian turn of governments.
• Peace and an end to the militarization that diverts budgets from social spending to rearmament, and an end to occupation and genocide in Palestine.

Another world is possible, and last week it was formulated a short distance from the IMF/World Bank convention center. Finance ministers must now choose whom they serve: the millions of citizens who elected them, or the 1%, by bending to pressure from the IMF and the World Bank that deepens inequality.

Isabel Ortiz, Director, Global Social Justice, was Director at the International Labor Organization (ILO) and UNICEF, and a senior official at the UN and the Asian Development Bank.

IPS UN Bureau

By External Source
Oct 15 2026 (IPS)

 
A safe home is more than a roof over our heads.

It is the foundation of health, security, opportunity and human dignity.

Yet for billions of people, that foundation remains out of reach.

According to UN-Habitat, 2.8 billion people worldwide face some form of inadequate housing.

More than one billion live in slums and informal settlements.

And over 300 million people are homeless.

The housing crisis is unfolding alongside a wider struggle against poverty.

The United Nations estimates that 826 million people will live in extreme poverty in 2026 — surviving on less than three dollars a day.

That’s one in every ten people worldwide.

And having a job offers no guarantee of escaping poverty.

In 2025, 284 million workers were living in extreme poverty.

Meanwhile, 3.8 billion people remain without any form of social protection.

Conflict, climate-related disasters, displacement and rising living costs are placing further pressure on vulnerable communities.

Against this backdrop, the 2026 International Day for the Eradication of Poverty calls for Safe Homes for All, under the theme United for Peace and Human Rights.

The United Nations is urging governments to prioritize adequate housing, mobilize resources and involve people experiencing poverty in decisions that affect their lives.

Because ending poverty means more than increasing incomes.

It means ensuring that everyone has a safe place to live, access to essential services, and the opportunity to build a secure future.

This October 17th, the message is clear:

A safe home is not a privilege. It is a human right.

IPS UN Bureau

Impunity for past crimes has fueled decades of violence and human rights abuses in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Credit: MONUSCO/Aubin Mukoni

By Ida Sawyer
WASHINGTON DC, Oct 15 2026 (IPS)

It has been 30 years since Rwanda-backed rebel forces attacked Lemera hospital in what was then eastern Zaire, killing 37 patients and medical staff. This was one of the first major atrocities during what became known as the First Congo War, helping to unleash decades of foreign-backed rebellions and grave abuses against civilians by all sides, including ethnic-based massacres, widespread rape and sexual violence, forced recruitment of children, abductions, torture, mutilation, and forced displacement.

The Congolese Nobel Peace Prize laureate, Dr. Denis Mukwege, began his career as a doctor at Lemera hospital, and he was there on October 6, 1996 when the place he thought was safe, protected by international humanitarian law, became the scene of carnage. Dr. Mukwege has since dedicated his life to supporting survivors of sexual violence in the Democratic Republic of Congo and to advocating justice for victims.

The attack on Lemera hospital was one of the 617 incidents in the United Nations Mapping Report, which documents alleged serious violations of international humanitarian and human rights law in Congo between 1993 and 2003.

What’s missing now is the political will to prioritize justice for the Congolese people. With millions killed during hostilities or dying from conflict-related causes, the war in Congo is widely regarded as the deadliest conflict for civilians since World War II
Yet the serious crimes went on. Despite the important work of the International Criminal Court (ICC) and Congolese military courts, the vast majority of alleged perpetrators remain unpunished, including high-level government and military officials from Congo, Rwanda, and Uganda.

Attacks as horrific as the one on Lemera hospital continue today, as an abusive Rwanda-backed armed group, known as the M23, controls large swathes of North and South Kivu provinces, while numerous other armed groups as well as Congolese army forces and their allies continue to target civilians.

Many of the commanders responsible for abuses that Human Rights Watch and others have documented in recent months are the same ones whose crimes we have documented for decades – often as they move from one armed group to another, integrate into the Congolese army, and then leave again when they have new grievances. Impunity for these past crimes has fueled the abuses we’re documenting today.

What’s missing now is the political will to prioritize justice for the Congolese people. With millions killed during hostilities or dying from conflict-related causes, the war in Congo is widely regarded as the deadliest conflict for civilians since World War II. Yet despite, or perhaps because of, its brutal and seemingly intractable nature, the conflict rarely dominates headlines or high-level diplomatic agendas.

When Congo does capture the world’s attention, it is more often for its natural resources than the plight of its citizens. Powerful foreign countries and companies – facilitated and enabled by self-serving national leaders – exploit and plunder the country’s wealth. Congo’s minerals help power the technological revolution driving so much of global economic growth, all while a litany of grave abuses go unpunished and undeterred.

To break this culture of violence and impunity, world leaders should put meaningful pressure on both the Congolese and Rwandan governments to end all support to abusive armed groups operating in Congo.

They should also press the Congolese government to implement a vetting program, with international support, to remove those implicated in serious human rights abuses from the Congolese security forces, intelligence services, and government positions.

And they should support a multi-tiered justice response to address the scale and gravity of Congo’s impunity gap. This should include support to the ICC and its ongoing investigation in Congo, the pursuit abroad of universal jurisdiction cases wherever possible, and continued support to improve Congo’s military justice system.

There also needs to be an internationalized justice mechanism to complement the work of the ICC and purely domestic courts, and a comprehensive reparations program for victims of serious international crimes.

I was honored to join Dr. Mukwege in Brussels and Strasbourg in recent days to initate a campaign, “30 Years of War, 30 Years of Impunity,” during events organized by the Panzi Foundation, the René Cassin Foundation, the city of Brussels, and the Eurometropolis of Strasbourg, to raise awareness about the conflict in Congo and to mobilize strong international action to end the cycles of violence, abuse, and impunity.

As Dr. Mukwege said in Strasbourg: “Thirty years of war is thirty years too many. Thirty years of impunity is thirty years too many. … . It is time to place the right of millions of victims to justice at the heart of efforts to establish peace and consolidate the rule of law.”

Ida Sawyer is crisis, conflict, and arms director at Human Rights Watch.

UN Secretary-General António Guterres opens the general debate of the General Assembly’s 81st session on 22 September 2026. Credit: UN Photo/Loey Felipe

By Andrew Firmin
LONDON, Oct 14 2026 (IPS)

At this year’s highest-profile UN event, Donald Trump publicly mused over his ‘big decision’ about whether to ‘annihilate’ Iran. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, as dozens of delegates walked out, branded those who condemn genocide in Gaza ‘moral cowards’.

The UN was established in the devastating aftermath of the Second World War with the explicit aim to ‘save succeeding generations from the scourge of war’. Its charter commits all UN members to settling disputes peacefully. Yet at the UN General Assembly’s annual high-level session, held in September, several national leaders used a podium meant for peace and international cooperation to justify and threaten violence.

The bellicose tone of many speeches signalled a broader crisis of multilateralism. Autocrats are throwing their weight around, determined to prove that might makes right, or, as Trump put it when boasting of US control of Venezuelan oil, ‘to the victor belong the spoils’. Such leaders care little for international laws, norms, institutions and processes.

Powerful states are withdrawing from institutions, defunding them, refusing to cooperate and forming rival, more selective and less formal groupings. Nakedly transactional deal-making is replacing collective action, fragmenting the multilateral system. As a rules-based order gives way to something more chaotic, civil society’s opportunities to engage are withering. All this is happening as huge transnational problems mount up, including the climate crisis, economic inequality, impunity for conflict atrocities and the repression of civic space.

The race to succeed Guterres

Against this backdrop, someone new will take the helm. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres’s second term expires at the end of the year, and states are now choosing his successor.

Civil society is calling for a feminist woman leader who puts human rights first. Yet human rights feature little in the debate. A former UN human rights chief, Michelle Bachelet, has pulled out because straw polls among the 15 Security Council members, a key stage of the process, showed she lacked support.

In each poll, states can ‘encourage’ or ‘discourage’ a candidacy, or express ‘no opinion’. So far, five rounds have proved inconclusive. Former Costa Rican Vice President Rebeca Grynspan has emerged as frontrunner, but the latest poll saw her receive six ‘discourage’ votes compared to three in the round before. No candidate commands overwhelming backing and it’s possible other candidates will come forward.

Civil society is trying to engage, but ultimately states don’t have to publicly justify their decisions. Because the Security Council is central to the process, the final say rests with its five permanent members, China, France, Russia, the UK and the USA, any of which can veto a candidate they dislike. Opaque negotiations are therefore likely to produce a compromise candidate that China, Russia and the USA find sufficiently inoffensive.

As the race heats up, there are signs candidates are avoiding speaking about issues that may be seen as contentious for fear of losing support. States that back particular candidates may decide not to ask difficult questions that could cost them votes. As a result, important matters such as Israel’s genocide in Gaza and the rights of excluded groups are being sidelined. Anyone who sees themselves as a world leader should be taking these issues on, but candidates’ refusal to do so shows how firmly powerful states are calling the shots.

One candidate, Carolyn Rodrigues-Birkett, has been the target of a Wall Street Journal hit piece over comments condemning Israel’s actions in Gaza as genocide, made in her role as Guyana’s ambassador to the UN. The intent is clearly to encourage the USA to block her.

Civil society expects a global voice of conscience, someone prepared to go further than serving states and willing to speak up on the issues candidates are now avoiding. History shows that, even in difficult times, the personality and leadership style of the secretary-general can make a difference. Whoever prevails will have to steer the UN through crisis and rebuild respect for the institution and the broader promise of multilateralism, and that means putting human rights first.

Access needed

When they next meet, national leaders will have the opportunity to shape the future of development. The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), the set of 17 interconnected goals agreed by every UN member state in 2015, expire in 2030. Next year’s SDG Summit will consider what should come next.

In these difficult times, civil society faces the challenge of asserting a progressive vision and pushing for goals that make a real difference. But civil society remains excluded. It was once again forced to the sidelines for this high-level session. The passes of organisations that have cleared accreditation hurdles and normally have access to UN headquarters are suspended at these annual meetings. This speaks of a broader exclusion. The UN has failed to advance even modest proposals to recognise civil society’s role, such as instituting a UN civil society day or appointing an envoy to coordinate civil society engagement.

Meanwhile, the UN’s funding crisis is further impacting on civil society’s participation. The USA is the chief culprit, owing around US$4.2 billion in contributions. The USA and other powerful states are defunding and sidelining the UN’s human rights functions, which civil society most engages with. The result is job cuts, curtailed mandates and fewer opportunities for civil society participation.

The arrival of a new secretary-general and the debate on new development goals bring not just challenges but also opportunities. To seize them, civil society will need to build stronger coalitions and collaborate more closely than ever. It must engage constructively with the next secretary-general while raising expectations, putting stronger access and partnerships on the table.

A state-centric UN will fail. A UN that hopes to make a difference on big problems, rebuild respect for human rights and win an increasingly contested argument for the value of multilateralism can’t keep excluding civil society. The next secretary-general must champion an open and accountable UN that recognises civil society as an essential partner.

Andrew Firmin is CIVICUS Editor-in-Chief, 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

Medicine is supposed to protect human life and dignity. Yet testimonies from Ukrainians released from Russian captivity reveal a disturbing reality: medical personnel in places of detention have not only denied prisoners necessary treatment but, in documented cases, participated in torture and ill-treatment.

Anna Trushova

The research draws on testimonies from 16 people released from Russian captivity, including former detainees and medical professionals. Their accounts describe the denial of medical assistance, the neglect of serious injuries and illnesses, degrading treatment, and the concealment of evidence of violence. Some testimonies describe medical personnel directly participating in acts of torture.

One of the most troubling findings is the consistency of these accounts. Previous reports have documented abuses by medical staff, but this research systematically examines testimonies alongside the legal and regulatory framework governing medical professionals in Russia. Its findings suggest that the violations cannot be dismissed as isolated misconduct.

Russian medical personnel are bound not only by international humanitarian law and professional medical ethics but also by domestic rules that require them to provide care and to refrain from causing harm. The documented abuses, therefore, raise questions about violations of both international obligations and Russia’s own legal standards.

The consequences extend far beyond the detention facilities. People returning from captivity often require prolonged medical treatment and rehabilitation. Their families, meanwhile, must cope with the lasting effects of imprisonment, serious illness, and loss.

Sofia Krokhmaliuk, whose father, Oleksandr Krokhmaliuk, headed the Azov brigade’s medical service and died in captivity, described the pain of receiving his body back in Ukraine. She said the condition of his remains indicated that he had not died of natural causes.

Another family has spoken about the consequences that can persist after release. Ukrainian serviceman Oleksandr Savov spent more than 1,000 days in Russian captivity and returned home on March 19, 2025. He died of heart failure on November 16 that year, aged 46. His daughter, Anastasiia Savova, has emphasized that release does not mean the end of a crime: its consequences can last for the rest of a person’s life.

These stories demonstrate why the right to medical care in captivity cannot be treated as a secondary humanitarian concern. For people held in conditions where they have little or no access to independent assistance, medical care may be essential to their survival. Its deliberate denial can itself become a form of cruel treatment.

The Center for Civil Liberties’ research adds another dimension by examining the role of medical personnel within this system. It also reinforces the need to document individual responsibility and preserve evidence for future investigations and prosecutions.

Accountability is possible, even when it takes years. Thorough documentation can help identify those responsible, establish patterns of abuse, and provide evidence for national and international legal proceedings. Impunity, by contrast, creates conditions in which violations can continue.

That is why more than 90 Ukrainian organizations and institutions have appealed to the World Health Organization (WHO), urging it to respond to the systematic denial of medical care and the documented involvement of medical personnel in torture and ill-treatment.

The appeal calls for stronger international monitoring of detention facilities, including through cooperation with the International Committee of the Red Cross, United Nations mechanisms, and independent medical organizations. It also urges support for documenting abuses, identifying those responsible, and securing medical evacuation for severely wounded and seriously ill prisoners of war and unlawfully detained civilians.

The WHO cannot replace international investigators or courts. But its professional authority and international reach can help bring these violations to the attention of the global medical community and strengthen calls for independent access, accountability, and protection.

The immediate priority must be to help those still held in captivity receive the medical care they need. At the same time, the international community must ensure that allegations of medical personnel participating in torture are investigated rather than ignored.

Medicine must never become an instrument of repression. When those entrusted with protecting life become involved in abuse, the response must extend beyond professional condemnation. It must include independent monitoring, effective pressure, evidence preservation, and accountability.

For Ukrainians who remain in Russian captivity, these measures are not abstract questions of ethics or international law. They may determine whether they receive treatment, whether their suffering is documented, and whether they live to return home.

Anna Trushova is human rights defender and communications manager at the Center for Civil Liberties

IPS UN Bureau

The protracted demise of dollar-gold convertibility and associated fixed exchange rates did not end dollar hegemony. With crucial and timely help from political allies, confidence in the dollar system has persisted, albeit much diminished.

Jomo Kwame Sundaram

But the BW payments arrangements and the US promise of dollar convertibility to gold were not sustainable. As Robert Triffin noted in 1960, the system was ‘failing by design’ from the outset, which US authorities denied and refused to address.

Vietnam War spending, rising inflation, and a run on US gold reserves forced this decision after allied Western central banks quietly gave up defending the gold-dollar peg in 1968.

Decades later, then-US Undersecretary for Monetary Affairs Paul Volcker revealed he had initiated a Treasury working group in 1969.

As the US balance of payments was already proving unsustainable, suspending gold-dollar convertibility was no longer considered an option to be avoided at all costs.

Portraying the gold peg’s failure as due to arithmetic, not politics, Volcker argued that suspending it involved implementing contingency planning that the group had long considered.

Two days before, Nixon summoned 15 advisors to a secret retreat at Camp David to draft his announcement. He also imposed a 90-day wage-price ‘freeze’ and a 10% tariff on imports.

Thus, Nixon presented the suspension of dollar convertibility to gold as part of a larger economic policy reform package, rather than as the long-overdue default on earlier US pledges.

With his 1972 re-election campaign approaching, Nixon and his Treasury Secretary, John Connally, claimed to be ‘freeing’ US economic policy by ending dollar-gold convertibility and associated fixed exchange rate obligations.

Clearly, Nixon’s mid-August 1971 announcement was not an improvised response to an emergency or even the sudden break he implied, although the Volcker group preferred a more ‘controlled demolition’.

US dollar, others’ problem
When allied finance ministers were negotiating a replacement arrangement in Rome in November 1971, Connally bluntly told them that the dollar was America’s currency but their problem, belatedly confessing to BW’s true nature.

Nonetheless, their December 1971 Smithsonian Agreement still sought to patch things up rather than explicitly abandon the 1944 arrangement and the later efforts to defend it.

The dollar was devalued against gold for the first time since 1934, with its price rising from $35 to $38 an ounce. Trading bands around other currencies were widened to give central banks more flexibility.

Nixon pronounced the 1971 Smithsonian Agreement the most significant monetary arrangement in world history before the dollar was devalued again 14 months later, in February 1973.

National authorities politically aligned with the US had defended it, but eventually stopped paying to maintain the charade. Thus, a year and a half after August 1971, BW was finally buried.

Within weeks, the major currencies abandoned fixed exchange rates altogether, allowing them to float against one another. Although the transition to floating rates was not smooth, it has survived, with modifications, ever since.

But the ‘settlement gap’ time lag under floating exchange rates is so problematic that international banking regulators have long sought to reform the way cross-border currency trades are cleared.

Charade over?
Although BW is now long gone, the dollar system has proven durable. The end of gold convertibility was not fatal to the dollar’s role at the centre of world finance.

Instead, the end of the BW dollar-gold convertibility obligation removed one constraint on it. After the final break with gold in 1973, the dollar was only backed by US government promises.

Gold’s formal demonetisation was confirmed with the 1976 Jamaica Accords when IMF member governments quietly amended its charter to strip the precious metal of any official role.

Freed from its earlier BW obligation to redeem dollars with gold, the US has financed its trade, current account, and fiscal deficits, as well as foreign and domestic government spending, with ever more dollar debt.

The world has increasingly financed the growth of US debt as the dollar remains the main currency in which most international trade, especially in commodities, is priced and settled.

The IMF had policed fixed exchange rates and gold-dollar convertibility for over two decades after the war. It has since changed roles to oversee floating exchange rates, selectively serve as ‘lender of last resort’ and manage sovereign debt crises.

International oil transactions were mainly settled in ‘petrodollars’, due to an arrangement with Saudi and other Gulf producers to use oil sales revenue to buy US Treasury securities.

The status quo is now based on others’ willingness to hold dollars. But growing concerns about US willingness to honour its commitments have caused governments to consider alternatives. But dollar hegemony has weathered such recent storms so far.

IPS UN Bureau

Religious leaders, representatives of international organizations and Kazakh officials gather for the 24th Secretariat meeting of the Congress of Leaders of World and Traditional Religions at the Palace of Peace and Reconciliation in Astana on October 7, 2026. The gathering reflected Kazakhstan’s longstanding efforts to turn interfaith dialogue into practical international cooperation. Credit: The press service of the congress.

By Katsuhiro Asagiri
ASTANA, Kazakhstan, Oct 12 2026 (IPS)

In a world increasingly divided by war, political distrust and competing ideologies, Kazakhstan has spent more than two decades pursuing an unusual diplomatic undertaking: keeping representatives of different religions in conversation.

Erlan Karin, Vice President of Kazakhstan and Head of the Secretariat of the Congress of Leaders of World and Traditional Religions, addresses the 24th Secretariat meeting at the Palace of Peace and Reconciliation in Astana on October 7, 2026. He emphasized the role of spiritual diplomacy in building trust and complementing conventional diplomatic efforts. Credit: Congress Press Service

“Spiritual diplomacy can play a special role,” he told participants. “It doesn’t replace political talks. But it complements them and keeps channels of communication open where diplomatic dialogue is difficult.”

The remarks came at the 24th meeting of the Secretariat of the Congress of Leaders of World and Traditional Religions, held on Oct. 7 at the Palace of Peace and Reconciliation.

The official participant list named 38 representatives of religious communities, international organizations and Kazakh government institutions, reflecting the forum’s religious and geographical diversity.

Founded in 2003 at the initiative of Kazakhstan’s first president, Nursultan Nazarbayev, the Congress initially brought 17 delegations from 13 countries to Astana.

It has since developed into an international forum that convenes major gatherings every three years while maintaining contact through its Secretariat.

Pope Francis participated in the seventh Congress in 2022, alongside the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar, Ahmed Al-Tayeb. The eighth Congress, held in September 2025, brought together religious and international representatives around the Astana Peace Declaration.

For Kazakhstan, situated between Russia and China and pursuing relations across competing centers of power, the Congress has become one expression of its wider diplomatic approach: providing a meeting place for governments, religions and civilizations that do not always share political interests.

Kazakhstan’s Legacy of Interfaith Dialogue. This illustration traces the Congress of Leaders of World and Traditional Religions from its founding in 2003 under President Nursultan Nazarbayev to the historic 2022 gathering attended by Pope Francis and Al-Azhar’s Grand Imam Ahmed Al-Tayeb, and the adoption of the Astana Peace Declaration in 2025 under President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev. Together, these milestones reflect Kazakhstan’s enduring efforts to promote interfaith dialogue, mutual understanding and global peace. Credit: AI-generated illustration/INPS Japan

But its participants are increasingly asking how such encounters can influence events outside the conference hall.

Father Laurent Basanese of the Holy See’s Dicastery for Interreligious Dialogue. He emphasized the Vatican’s longstanding commitment to the initiative and the importance of translating interfaith declarations into sustained cooperation.

Father Laurent Basanese, representing the Holy See’s Dicastery for Interreligious Dialogue, reminded delegates that the Vatican had supported the initiative since its founding.

He recalled Pope Francis’ participation in 2022 and emphasized the continuing work required after declarations are adopted.

The credibility of such statements, he said, ultimately depends on the willingness of their signatories to keep working together.

That concern was echoed by Mohamed Abdelsalam, secretary-general of the Muslim Council of Elders, who warned that principles left unimplemented risk becoming little more than words on paper.

“A declaration that is not implemented loses its functionality,” he said, according to the meeting transcript.

The appeal for continuity also came from the United Nations.

Nihal Saad, director of the United Nations Alliance of Civilizations, thanked Kazakhstan for its sustained efforts to promote cooperation across cultural and religious boundaries.

Mohamed Abdelsalam, Secretary-General of the Muslim Council of Elders. He emphasized the need to translate interfaith declarations into concrete action for peace and human fraternity. Credit: Katsuhiro Asagiri/INPS Japan

The challenge with AI, she said, was ensuring that ethics were “built into the design of AI systems rather than as an afterthought.”

Her remarks placed the Congress within a wider international debate over how technological progress can remain accountable to human values.

Turning Principles Into Projects

Kazakhstan’s latest effort to give the forum a practical role produced two documents adopted at the meeting.

One addresses the contribution of religions to combating climate change. The other establishes 11 ethical principles for using artificial intelligence in religious contexts.

Both emerged from proposals advanced by President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev at the 2025 Congress.

Gulsana Kozhabay, who heads the International Center for Interfaith and Interreligious Dialogue, explained that the climate document had been developed with contributions from 26 religious representatives, diplomats and experts.

Nihal Saad, director of the United Nations Alliance of Civilizations. Credit: The Astana Times

The AI code, refined through an interreligious commission of 24 participants, addresses human dignity, freedom of conscience, religious information and the dangers of algorithmic manipulation.

Contributors included representatives of religious traditions extending far beyond Central Asia, among them Japanese Shinto representatives and Chinese Taoist leaders.

The meeting also considered a different kind of cooperation.

Yerzhan Ashikbayev, Kazakhstan’s first deputy foreign minister, presented a joint initiative with the Holy See: a charter protecting the rights and dignity of children with incurable diseases.

Kazakhstan and the Holy See had agreed on the charter’s text during a separate colloquium in Astana on Oct. 2–3. The Secretariat subsequently supported efforts to advance it internationally.

“When medical science reaches its limits, our human responsibility does not end,” Ashikbayev said in his prepared remarks.

The charter emphasizes palliative care, relief of suffering, parental participation and support for children and their families.

Yerzhan Ashikbayev, Kazakhstan’s First Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs. He presented a joint Kazakhstan–Holy See initiative to protect the rights and dignity of children with incurable diseases. Credit: Katsuhiro Asagiri/INPS Japan

The Next Test for Spiritual Diplomacy

None of these initiatives removes the political difficulties surrounding international cooperation.

The two ethical documents are advisory and create no legal obligations. Their influence will depend on whether religious institutions, governments and technology companies act on their recommendations.

These efforts also reflect the security challenges facing Central Asia.

As developments in Afghanistan continue to affect regional stability, Kazakhstan has worked with the United Nations to combat terrorism and prevent violent extremism.

Against this backdrop, Kazakhstan’s ability to sustain an international platform for dialogue among religious leaders of different traditions for more than two decades has become a distinctive feature of its diplomacy, linking regional security concerns with a commitment to religious diversity and mutual understanding.

At the conclusion of the meeting, Karin called for work on a proposed Global Movement for Peace, intended to strengthen cooperation among religious leaders and give spiritual diplomacy a more practical international role.

The pyramid-shaped Palace of Peace and Reconciliation in Astana, Kazakhstan, hosted the 24th Secretariat meeting of the Congress of Leaders of World and Traditional Religions on October 7, 2026. The landmark symbolizes Kazakhstan’s longstanding commitment to promoting interfaith dialogue, mutual understanding and global peace. Credit: Katsuhiro Asagiri/INPS Japan

A draft concept and phased plan are to be prepared for consideration in 2027, ahead of the ninth Congress in 2028.

It remains a proposal, not an established peacebuilding mechanism.

But the assignment reflects an important shift in Kazakhstan’s approach: from demonstrating that religious leaders can meet despite their differences to asking what they are prepared to accomplish together.

After 23 years, the country has demonstrated an ability to keep the conversation going.

The next test is whether that conversation can help change the world beyond Astana.

This article is brought to you by INPS Japan in collaboration with Soka Gakkai International in consultative status with UN ECOSOC.

IPS UN Bureau

Excerpt:

Children in Gaza wait in the hope of receiving food. Credit: UN News

By UN Women
UNITED NATIONS, Oct 9 2026 (IPS)

Since October 2023, 50,000 women and girls in Gaza have been killed or seriously injured.

• UN Women estimates that nearly 50,000 women and girls in Gaza have been killed or severely injured since the onset of war in October 2023 [1], amounting to one in 21 Gazan women and girls losing their life or living with lifelong disabilities [2].


• More than 38,000 women and girls have been killed and 11,700 severely injured, the result of Israeli airstrikes and land military operations.

• While most of the casualties recorded took place during the first two years of the war, women and girls continue to be targeted despite a ceasefire agreement entering into effect in October 2025. Two hundred seventy-seven women and girls are among those who have been killed in Gaza over the past year.

Nearly every woman and girl in Gaza is displaced.

• More than 150 evacuation and movement orders have been issued across Gaza by the Israeli Defense Forces since October 2023, forcing nearly one million women and girls from their homes – nearly every woman and girl in Gaza.

• The majority of women and girls in Gaza live in tents or in the ruins, with no privacy. In conditions that are incompatible with survival and dignity, women and girls are caring for children, the sick, the injured, and for the elderly, cooking and cleaning without the basic means to carry out these responsibilities.

• Women are being forced to deliver babies in unsafe and unsanitary conditions, putting their lives at risk. At the same time, the number of miscarriages reached almost 4,000 in the first six months of 2026, triple the number recorded during the last six months of 2025.

The number of widows and those assuming the role of head of household in Gaza has doubled since October 2023.

• Nearly one in four households in Gaza – an estimated 86,290 households – is now reportedly headed by a woman, compared to the pre-October 2023 rate of one in nine.

• For women-headed households, the impact extends beyond the grief of losing a husband, father or other loved one. Many are now carrying sole responsibility for providing for, protecting, and holding their families together in increasingly devastating conditions.

Despite the ceasefire, women and girls in Gaza continue to face severely limited access to food, shelter, safe water, and hygiene supplies, alongside ongoing hostilities and insecurity.

• Intense and widespread bombing has leveled homes, businesses, hospitals, schools, and shops, making it extremely hard for women and girls to access essential services and basic goods.

• Restrictions on humanitarian access and bombardment continue to cause immense suffering. Between July and December 2026, an estimated 702,000 women and girls are projected to face high levels of acute food insecurity (IPC Phase 3+, crisis or worse), with devastating effects on their health, including the risk of malnutrition [3].

The steepest recorded decline in aid is threatening a lifeline to women and girls in Gaza: women’s organizations.

• UN Women surveyed women’s organizations working on the frontlines of the response in Gaza and the occupied West Bank. Thirteen of the 14 organizations surveyed reported that the level of need among women and girls has increased since 2025. All organizations surveyed had seen an increase in gender-based violence, poverty, and mental health distress since 2025. Thirteen of the 14 organizations had seen an increase in child marriage.

• At the same time, 13 of the 14 organizations surveyed by UN Women reported that they do not have the capacity to meet the growing needs of women and girls. To cope with the lack of funding, nearly two thirds of the organizations told UN Women they had been forced to put women and girls on waiting lists or turn them away.

UN Women is on the ground in Gaza. We work with women-led and women’s rights organizations to provide lifesaving and critical support to women and girls, including protection services and gender-based violence case management, legal aid, mental health and psychosocial support, and emergency cash and livelihoods assistance.

From fitting women and girls with prosthetics and offering counselling to survivors, to ensuring that the humanitarian response is shaped by the experiences and perspectives of women and girls, our support is helping them to stay afloat. But women and girls in Gaza need peace.

UN Women calls for the ceasefire in Gaza to be fully implemented. We call for international law to be upheld, accountability for violations, and the protection of women and girls and all civilians. Humanitarian assistance must reach those in need – at scale and without obstruction. Women and girls must be placed at the centre of response and recovery efforts.

[1] The proportion was calculated by combining women and girls killed or injured (38,000 and 11,700, respectively).

[3] UN Women estimate based on the IPC Gaza Strip Special Brief, published 13 August 2026. The estimated 702,000 women and girls facing acute food insecurity at crisis-level or worse (IPC Phase 3+) during July–December 2026 is calculated by applying PCBS’s 2025 female population share (49.7 per cent) to the IPC projected caseload of 1,412,421 people. The calculation assumes proportional representation of women and girls across IPC phases and is rounded to the nearest thousand.

IPS UN Bureau

Ore containing copper, cobalt, and nickel, critical minerals that power the use of emerging technologies. Credit: Unsplash/Paul-Alain Hunt

By Oritro Karim
UNITED NATIONS, Oct 8 2026 (IPS)

The demand for critical minerals is accelerating as world powers scramble to stay on top of emerging technologies. Meanwhile, the environment and frontline communities are paying a steep price.

Such was the basis of the discussion held by the Oakland Institute on September 30, during their webinar: ‘How War and AI Fuel the Critical Minerals Race‘. The event convened experts and frontline activists to examine how artificial intelligence (AI) drives mineral extraction, transforms war technologies, and affects communities entrenched in protracted conflict.

Building on the Institute’s July report, RUSH: Global Scramble for Minerals Wages War on People and Planet, the event highlighted the correlation between rising military spending and the proliferation of AI systems. Panelists stressed that as the demand for critical minerals reaches new peaks, frontline communities bear the brunt of adverse environmental and social impacts.

Anuradha Mittal, founder and Executive Director of the Oakland Institute, noted that military operations account for less than 10 percent of total critical mineral use. Despite this, she warned that the global AI “boom” and increasing competition between world powers over strategic supply chains could trigger a sharp rise in extraction.

Expanding data centers will demand increasingly higher quantities of critical minerals, including copper, gallium, indium, palladium, magnesium, tungsten, germanium, and tantalum. Mittal projected that by 2030, data centers could require an additional 512,000 tons of copper, alongside a 37 percent increase in germanium and an 85 percent increase in gallium by 2033.

She highlighted the United States military-industrial complex as a specific area of concern, describing it as an “AI-first warfighting force.” Under the Trump administration’s proposed 2027 defense budget, military spending would reach a record high of 1.5 trillion USD, nearly twice that of 2023. As the U.S. races to counter China’s dominance across global supply chains, extraction, and processing, the Trump administration has enacted rapid measures to secure minerals internationally.

“Since 2025, the (Trump) administration claims to have signed 38 mineral agreements with countries ranging from Ukraine, India, the DRC, the Philippines, UAE, Australia, Argentina, and Saudi Arabia…Competition with China is bolstering this strategy,” said Mittal. “The Department of War has allocated 75 billion USD to AI-driven programs and another 9 billion to data centers, while the Pentagon requested 13.4 billion dollars in 2026 for autonomous systems. This has driven the U.S. to start stockpiling minerals as strategic assets.”

Other panelists detailed how the impacts of the critical minerals race extend far beyond the global scramble for resources. Frontline communities are not only subjected to environmental degradation, but those in conflict zones are routinely exploited by tech and defense corporations as testing sites for novel military technologies before they are introduced to global markets.

Leila, representing the U.S.-based and Palestinian-led advocacy group Adalah Justice Project (AJP), warned that Gaza has served as an “enormous blueprint for AI-powered war,” noting that Israeli companies have historically used the enclave to test emerging technologies relating to surveillance.

“We have facial recognition drones, different kinds of spyware companies that can hack into phones, and all kinds of AI-assisted targeting programs that, of course, we really learned about through the last couple of years in the genocide,” said Leila. “These tools were developed and tested by Israeli companies in real time, and then sold to the world as sort of ‘battle-proven.’”

Leila also stressed the urgency of the Deadly Merger, a legislative proposal in the U.S. National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) to expand the integration of the U.S. and Israel’s military technology, intelligence, and surveillance systems. AJP posits that the Merger could intensify violence against Palestinians, drive heightened surveillance in the U.S., and impose a “new techno-fascist world order.”

Katerina Canyon, Executive Director of Peace Economy Project—a non-profit organization that advocates for the redirection of military spending toward human needs—introduced the concept of a “peace economy”, where critical resources are used to strengthen healthcare and social infrastructure rather than fund military operations.

Canyon stated that rare earths, lithium, cobalt, nickel, graphite, and other critical minerals are not only necessities for the proliferation of AI but also are cornerstone resources for the green energy transition. She emphasized that a peace economy must prioritize an equitable environment for civilians over military defensives.

“For nearly fifty years, our organization has challenged militarism and asked what would happen if public resources were directed toward human needs rather than preparation for war,” said Canyon. “My core argument is simple: critical minerals are not politically neutral. The same mineral can become part of a wind turbine, an electric bus, a medical device, or a missile guidance system. Geology does not make that distinction; policy does, government budgets do, procurement decisions do, and industrial strategy does.”

“So the real question is not simply whether we need critical minerals; it is what kind of economy are we building around them,” she continued. “A peace economy starts with a different definition of security. One centered on whether people have safe communities, have healthcare, clean energy, transportation, housing, and a livable environment.”

IPS UN Bureau Report

The effects of torture and ill-treatment seen on Oleksandr Savov, a Ukrainian marine who took part in the defence of Mariupol after his release from Russian captivity. Credit: Anastasiia Savova

By Ed Holt
BRATISLAVA, Oct 7 2026 (IPS)

More than 60 Ukrainian organisations have issued an appeal to the World Health Organisation (WHO) to help stop the torture of Ukrainians held in Russian captivity.

Ahead of International Doctors’ Day on October 5, the groups, including the Nobel Peace Prize-winning organisation the Centre for Civil Liberties (CCL), issued an appeal to the WHO, calling on it to draw international attention to systematic violations of the right to medical care for Ukrainian prisoners of war (POWs) and civilians illegally detained by Russian forces.

The appeal follows the release of a report, ‘Anatomy of Torture: Testimonies on Torture and Ill-Treatment by Medical Personnel in Russian Captivity’, by Ukrainian NGOs, including testimonies from released POWs and illegally detained civilians, which its authors say points to, among others, the systemic denial of medical care to detainees and the direct participation of medical staff in their torture and ill-treatment. In some cases this has resulted in the deaths of POWs and detained civilians.

The groups behind the appeal believe it will increase public awareness of the treatment of detained Ukrainians and put pressure on international organisations to take concrete action to stop it.

“It is important to draw attention to the fact that the denial of medical care and the involvement of medical personnel in cruel treatment are not isolated incidents but form a systemic problem. We expect international organisations not only to respond with statements but also to take concrete action,” Nataliia Yashchuk, Senior War Consequences Officer at CCL, which co-produced the Anatomy of Torture report, told IPS.

Since the start of Russia’s full-scale invasion more than four and a half years ago, there have been repeated reports of ill-treatment of POWs and civilians held in Russian detention facilities, including some that allege war crimes and crimes against humanity committed against detainees.

But the Anatomy of Torture report documents specifically how Ukrainians held in Russian penal institutes have been, and continue to be, victims of torture by medical staff.

Yashchuk told IPS that the group’s systematic analysis of dozens of testimonies demonstrated that these were not isolated incidents but instead a recurring pattern of behaviour by medical personnel in different detention centres, suggesting it was a systematic practice.

This is backed up by the fact that some of those who provided testimonies for the report were doctors and medics themselves and therefore especially qualified to identify the deliberate and systematic nature of the ill-treatment they suffered, its authors say.

“Our objective [with the report] was…to demonstrate the systemic nature of the problem,” Yashchuk said.

The report includes testimony from former Ukrainian prisoners of war (POWs) who were subjected to torture by doctors and nurses at facilities – CCL estimates there are up to 300 locations where Ukrainians are being held – across Russian-occupied territories and Russia itself.

The abuse included not just denial of healthcare but also beatings, electric shocks, death threats from medical staff, and being forced to stand in one spot for 16 hours and being made to beg for help before being tortured again.

Sergii Doroshenko, a former paediatrician who was serving as head of an army medical unit when he was captured by Russian forces in Mariupol in spring 2022, spent 1030 days in captivity at various detention centres across Russia.

He told IPS he was held in inhumane conditions in detention centres where medical supplies or personnel were sometimes non-existent, and any request for medical help was met with refusal. At others he and any other medical personnel detained were allowed to help their own wounded, but only using whatever they could scavenge themselves, such as any bandages, tourniquets, or other materials they happened to have.

Doroshenko said that in one penal facility where only unpurified water was available to prisoners, 800 people had intestinal illnesses at the same time. He and others used stripped bark from prison grounds, which they then brewed into a drink to slow down or curb such outbreaks.

“There were episodes when people lost consciousness from dehydration and received no treatment, because there were no medicines at all,” he said.

He also describes how at another detention centre when he and others sought medical help, “instead of pills, we were treated with electric shocks …it was the treatment for everything — for toothache, for injuries from beatings, for joint pain, for fever, for coughing.”

Meanwhile, in some cases medical personnel actively participated in torture.

He said his worst experience was during his last year of captivity when he was sent to a correctional colony in the Republic of Mordovia in the Russian Federation.

“There, the doctor personally took part in the torture and was perhaps the cruellest of all the staff at that colony,” said Doroshenko. He was nicknamed “Doctor Death” because after his torture sessions, several people had to undergo surgical operations.

“There was also the deliberate withholding of medical care by medical staff. Even when they saw that we had temperatures of 39–40°C, when people had a fever and fell into a kind of intermediate state between consciousness and unconsciousness, even then, they did not permit any treatment, not even a rest from the torture.

“For example, from my own experience, I had a very high fever, and for about four or five days I sought help daily, and in response received beatings and electric shocks, but my condition was so bad that a rash covered my entire body, from my face to my heels, and afterward I had peeling, shedding skin… I never received a single pill, not a single antipyretic treatment — nothing but beatings,” said Doroshenko.

He added that Russian propaganda intentionally demonised medics, which made prisoners like him a special target for torture.

Meanwhile, his presence in captivity was officially confirmed only two and a half years after his capture. Groups like Amnesty International have pointed out that POWs have been deliberately cut off from the outside world, often for years, and a lack of transparency over their whereabouts has allowed for their torture and even unlawful killings to continue with total impunity.

“The Russian Federation only officially confirmed my presence in captivity after two and a half years. Before that, they did not officially acknowledge that I was their prisoner, meaning that if I had been killed or tortured to death somewhere, they would bear no responsibility for it,” said Doroshenko.

“Only about six months before my release did they confirm that they indeed held a certain Sergii Doroshenko in captivity, and thereafter, the frequency of torture decreased significantly, the beatings decreased significantly — they started, so to speak, to take a bit of care of us, fearing that we might die from the torture,” he added.

Other groups have also documented incidents of torture of Ukrainians by Russian medical staff.

A report released late last year by Human Rights Watch (HRW) suggested medical personnel enabled or were apparently complicit in torture, staff at the group told IPS.

Yulia Gorbunova, associate director for Ukraine at HRW, told IPS that the report’s findings and ongoing monitoring showed incidents of Ukrainian POWs being denied basic treatment and pain management at detention facilities in Russia and Russia-occupied areas of Ukraine despite suffering from severe combat wounds or after being injured during interrogations.

“From the moment of capture and throughout their detention, former POWs described medical care at every stage as inadequate, often abusive, and routinely withheld or delayed. Treatment for combat wounds, torture injuries, or contagious diseases like tuberculosis and scabies was typically restricted to basic antiseptics or mild painkillers.

“In addition, these facilities are operated under conditions that actively degrade physical health. Ukrainian detainees (POWs and civilians) endure severe overcrowding, chronic starvation, unsanitary conditions, and a lack of clean water, leading to rapid physical deterioration and untreated health issues,” she said.

Another recent report by Ukrainian NGOs included similar findings.

Russian authorities have repeatedly denied that any Ukrainian POWs or civilians it holds are subject to ill treatment or torture.

However, reporting from the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) and the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Ukraine, among others, has shown that Russia has consistently refused to grant independent monitors access to POW detention sites.

This means that there are no official records of injuries and illnesses resulting from the ill-treatment and torture of detainees.

The Anatomy of Torture report includes an analysis documenting how the reported treatment of detainees by Russian medical staff is a violation of not just international rights treaties such as the Geneva Conventions but also the World Medical Association’s International Code of Medical Ethics.

When IPS contacted them, WHO officials were not available to speak about the Ukrainian organisations’ appeal.

A spokesperson for the ICRC did not comment on the specific allegations in the Anatomy of Torture report but said the group was “concerned by any reports of ill-treatment of those in captivity or detention.”

“Under international humanitarian law, all people deprived of liberty, be they combatants or civilians, must be treated humanely. Care for their life, dignity and wellbeing is paramount. The 1949 Geneva Conventions contain specific rules governing conditions of detention, including access to proper hygiene standards and medical care and treatment. In all cases, the provision of medical care must comply with the applicable standards of medical ethics,” the spokesperson said.

Meanwhile, some victims of the torture and ill-treatment recorded in the report are speaking out to help bring those responsible to justice.

When Oleksandr Savov, a Ukrainian marine who took part in the defence of Mariupol, returned to his family after almost three years in various Russian detention centres, his daughter, Anastasiia, was glad to be reunited with her father but shocked at his physical state. She knew from his almost skeletal frame that he had suffered while in captivity.

She told IPS that when he had been captured, he had no injuries nor illnesses. But when he was released, he had tuberculosis, broken ribs, chronic ulcers, and lymphoedema. He was unable to straighten one leg and doctors told him he would need a knee replacement.

He also had mental health problems, including night terrors, panic attacks during air raids, and a paralyzing fear of silence or queues.

After seeing doctors and realising the full extent of his injuries he began to think about what had happened to him and fellow captives and the fact that it was medical staff who had inflicted such suffering.

“He couldn’t understand how doctors could be so cruel to other people,” Anastasiia said.

He told her what they had done to him, including not just refusing to provide medical care when he needed it, but torture with electric shocks.

Savov died of heart failure in November last year, eight months after he was released. He was 46. After his death, doctors in Ukraine found that his heart had been damaged following a heart attack he had suffered in captivity.

He spent his final months visiting hospitals and documenting his memories in a notebook for the International Criminal Court (ICC).

Anastasiia has since founded a community for the families of captive marines and continues to speak out in support of detained defenders and returning soldiers. She has also filed a complaint with the ICC over her father’s torture.

She says that, like her father, she believes that speaking out publicly forces Russia to ease conditions for those still detained.

She also says that she wants to see the people who tortured her father and others brought before a court and held accountable for their actions.

“These medical staff are part of a system of torture in these prisons because when people ask for medical help, for instance, like when my father did, they come, and they just laughed in their faces and recorded videos of them on their phones instead of helping them,” she said.

She added it is imperative investigations into these people take place, or “this torture and ill treatment won’t end.”

This was also her father’s wish before he died.

“After he was released from captivity, my father did a lot of interviews with journalists and human rights defenders, and once he was asked whether he felt anger towards the people who had tortured him. He said that at that moment, he felt nothing about them, but he wanted the torture to stop. The thought that those kinds of things were going on at the same time he was talking to those journalists really upset him. He couldn’t understand why there was no one in the whole world who could do anything about it,” she says.

Doroshenko said people involved in the torture of Ukrainian detainees should face “something like the Nuremberg trials”.

“The conduct of the doctors, the medical staff, and even ordinary guards at these penal facilities was a deliberate violation of the Geneva Convention and a deliberate use of torture, and therefore they should be subject, as war criminals, to judicial investigation and, following that, judicial punishment in accordance with the court’s decision. These are people who have lost their humanity, who have become beasts, and who have no right to be in society. A doctor has no right to torture others,” he said.

Some doctors allegedly involved in torture of Ukrainian captives have already been identified, and earlier this year the EU sanctioned Galina Mokshanova, the head of the medical unit of Penal Colony No. 10 in Udarny, Russia, for human rights violations.

Ensuring justice and accountability is vital not just for victims and their relatives, Yashchuk said.

“This research is about documenting crimes but also the urgent need for effective international mechanisms capable of saving the lives of those who remain in captivity,” she said.

IPS UN Bureau Report

 
CIVICUS discusses life as a refugee with an exiled Sudanese civil society activist who has asked to remain anonymous for security reasons.

Over three years into Sudan’s war, millions of people have been displaced, both within the country and beyond its borders, and the numbers keep rising. Fighting continues to force civilians from their homes, while those who reach neighbouring countries struggle to find safety and stability. Civil society warns that, despite the scale of the suffering, Sudan’s crisis isn’t receiving the international attention it deserves. Exiles document violations and advocate for democracy and peace.

What drew you to human rights activism, and how has exile changed it?

The gender-based injustice women face in our societies drew me to human rights work. From childhood, I objected to the unequal treatment of girls and boys and the stereotypes that painted women as less capable. I rebelled against this system, seeking out books, stories and real-life experiences that showed women’s capabilities and potential.

Activism in exile, particularly during wartime, brings unending and unexpected risks and challenges. At times, it feels like you are fighting to survive. You carry the trauma of war and the guilt of being safe while your family and community remain in danger. Many human rights defenders lack the basic resources to survive.

In exile, I have moved from a radical stance to one focused on reform, having learned that dogmatism, hostility and refusal to listen can lead to violence and grave human rights violations. I have become more deliberate in my judgements, with a stronger desire to understand the other side.

How has Sudanese civil society adapted since the war began?

Sudanese civil society has shown remarkable resilience. People mobilised to confront the war and the collapse of state institutions. Within hours, young people and volunteers were helping the wounded, homes became field clinics and communities shared their resources.

As the war continued, many civil society organisations relocated abroad. One of the most remarkable aspects of the Sudanese experience has been the emergence of numerous additional human rights, humanitarian, women’s and youth organisations in host countries. They have maintained links with activists inside Sudan, monitored human rights and documented violations, provided humanitarian assistance, advocated for peace, promoted dialogue and countered hate speech.

Civil society’s work, inside Sudan and abroad, is one of the few sources of hope for peace in the country.

What barriers do Sudanese civil society activists and organisations face in exile?

Refugees face insecurity and a rising wave of xenophobia in host countries, and many feel unwelcome, or even blamed for seeking safety in a country where they are made to feel they don’t belong. Many also face movement restrictions, difficulties renewing residency documents and the constant risk of deportation.

On top of this, activists carry the added burden of propaganda that portrays them as fugitives or foreign agents. We must confront the abuses we document while also countering division, hatred, intolerance and racism.

Civil society organisations abroad also face economic, legal and security restrictions. Many struggle to register legally, open bank accounts, access funding or obtain permits.

Compounding all this are the limited international support and the sense that global decision-makers, and even international human rights organisations, don’t prioritise our concerns. This can leave you feeling that you simply don’t matter.

What needs to change to stop displacement silencing activists and refugees in general?

The global system often seems designed to protect the strong while weakening the vulnerable. In Africa and across the global south, we seek to change this, yet we remain constrained by the structures and assumptions of the system. We need to see difference as a source of diversity rather than division, share responsibility for resources and security, and protect everyone’s rights to life, development, dignity and freedom.

As a Sudanese refugee and human rights defender, I strongly support the Borderless Africa campaign, led by the pan-African civil society movement Africans Rising, which calls for visa-free travel and a single continental passport across Africa. It reflects the need to move beyond borders and put humanity and fundamental rights first.

It’s shocking to be forced into silence about crimes you have witnessed simply because you are a refugee. Governments, civil society and activists must dismantle the legal and logistical barriers that leave refugees unable to access basic rights.

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.

SEE ALSO
Sudan: ‘Crossing a border doesn’t automatically mean you’re safe’ CIVICUS Lens | Interview with Rawia Saad 09.Sep.2026
Sudan: blood on the hands of foreign powers CIVICUS Lens 04.Sep.2026
Sudan in crisis: mass killings continue while the world looks away CIVICUS Lens 23.Dec.2025

Mariam Daher preparing for her Tawjihi examinations in the temporary learning spaces in Gaza. Credit: Education Above All Foundation

By Hani Shehada
DOHA, Qatar, Oct 2 2026 (IPS)

In the 21st century, getting a pencil into Gaza became international news. In January, after more than two years of restrictions, UNICEF finally brought in learning kits with pencils and exercise books. Textbooks stayed out. By then, the UN had recorded damage to 97.5 per cent of Gaza’s schools.

If a pencil makes headlines, consider what a national examination demands: question papers printed for thousands of students, answer sheets scanned, halls furnished and staffed. In Gaza, education officials started by pulling damaged photocopiers from beneath the rubble, stripping their usable parts and rebuilding enough machines to keep the exam alive. It worked. More than 95,000 students have sat the Tawjihi, the national secondary school examination that decides who can compete for a university place.

This week, world leaders gathered at the UN General Assembly under the banner of “a United Nations that delivers for all“. The effort behind Gaza’s examination poses an uncomfortable question to that promise: when does celebrating a solution make it easier to tolerate the problem? Scholars writing from Gaza have warned that praising Palestinian resilience reassures outside observers and releases them from the duty to act.

At a school damaged by the war near Mashrou’ Amer in southwestern Gaza City, Education Above All Foundation and UNDP have established 10 temporary learning spaces. Credit: Education Above All Foundation

Israel classifies thousands of items as “dual-use“, spare parts among them, and bars or limits their entry. Technicians harvested parts from other machines. Repairing the printers and scanners took more than 90 days. The printers ran on old ink stocks, because new ink faced restrictions too. Until recently, paper itself could not enter Gaza.” and drop the fallback plan after it.

Exam halls also needed seats and desks. Little wood reaches Gaza. Carpenters build tables from scrap and shipping pallets, and families burn whatever they find to cook and keep warm. Staff repaired chairs and desks with timber from the pallets that carry aid. Every liter of fuel for an examination center required coordination. All of it happened under strikes that never fully stopped, which have killed more than 1,300 Palestinians in Gaza since the ceasefire took effect.

An examination also needs people. Every center needed invigilators while many education staff receive only a fraction of their salary. Before assigning anyone, the ministry first had to establish who was still alive. The war has killed more than 21,000 students and educational staff since October 2023.

A school teacher leads a lesson inside one of Gaza’s temporary learning spaces established by Education Above All Foundation and UNDP.
Credit: Education Above All Foundation

This year, Gaza’s candidates took the Tawjihi online, many on phones in tents and cafés, while the ministry worked to bring the exam back into halls. With support from the State of Qatar, Education Above All Foundation, UNDP and the ministry have set up 110 learning spaces, partly for that purpose. Planners intended these spaces, a mix of prefabricated units and tents, as a transition. Gaza’s students are using them for years, while sun, heat, humidity and cold wear them down.

Gaza’s people now crowd into less than 40 per cent of the Strip. Crews must clear rubble and check for unexploded ordnance before they can build. When they clear land for a learning space, displaced families can move onto it and stay. Others shelter in partly destroyed buildings. A school site now competes with the most basic need of all: somewhere to live.

Picture one of those 95,000 candidates. She has studied for this exam for years, first at a desk at home, then by phone light in a tent. The war has taken her father, perhaps her mother too, and most of the family who would have waited for her results. She may walk on crutches where a leg used to be. Strikes still fall at night, and she revises anyway. All she wants is the chance to sit the exam. Behind that chance stand a salvaged photocopier, a rebuilt desk and a negotiated liter of fuel, each one liable to fail. The UN reports that shortages once managed through reuse have become unmanageable, and critical systems are failing. Judged against a cancelled examination, against a school able to order a replacement part, it reveals an avoidable burden.

I am from Gaza, and I work for one of the foundations that funds this response. That makes the question personal: have we become so used to celebrating what Palestinians can salvage that we no longer ask why they must salvage it? An examination held amid continuing strikes is an achievement. It is also evidence of a world that has allowed the conditions for education to be dismantled.

As the speeches in New York wind down, leaders can measure their words against practical tests. Let paper, printer parts, school furniture and textbooks into Gaza without months of negotiation. Fund classrooms built to last years, not seasons. Pay the teachers who keep the system running. Gaza’s educators have shown what they will do to keep education alive. The question before the world is what it would take for Gaza’s schools to stop needing miracles.

Hani Shehada, Palestinian from the Gaza Strip, and is Regional Manager at Education Above All Foundation’s Al Fakhoora programme.

IPS UN Bureau

Excerpt:

Media personnel watch a digital screen showing leaders of member states gather for a family photograph during the 18th BRICS Summit in New Delhi on 13 September 2026. Credit: Arun Sankar/AFP

By Samuel King and Inés M. Pousadela
BRUSSELS, Belgium / MONTEVIDEO, Uruguay, Sep 30 2026 (IPS)

At the 18th BRICS Summit, held on 12 and 13 September in New Delhi, India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi brought together presidents Xi Jinping of China, Vladimir Putin of Russia and Masoud Pezeshkian of Iran, along with Abu Dhabi’s Crown Prince, Sheikh Khaled bin Mohamed bin Zayed, representing the United Arab Emirates (UAE). Around the table sat longstanding rivals such as India and China and, in the case of Iran, Saudi Arabia and the UAE, states on opposite sides of an ongoing war. That the summit produced a joint declaration every member could sign was a modest multilateralist success.

The summit took place against a fast-changing backdrop. With the USA under Donald Trump an unreliable partner and often a hostile power bent on bullying others into submission, numerous states are seeking new alliances as a counterweight. BRICS, whose 11 members account for 49 per cent of the world’s population and 28 per cent of the global economy, could become a more significant forum as a result. But what is on offer is a profoundly old-fashioned, state-centric form of multilateralism, in which the people in whose name states claim to act have little say.

A hollow declaration

At the summit, Xi called for international rules to be ‘written by all countries’, even though he leads a one-party state where increasingly only he writes the rules. Putin urges greater representation for Africa, Asia and Latin America at the UN Security Council, while routinely wielding his veto to stop the council acting on his war in Ukraine.

The New Delhi Declaration’s silences speak loudest. It is explicit on Palestine, calling on Israel to end its war on Gaza and backing a Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders. But on the war in Iran, it only urges ‘maximum restraint’ without naming the warring parties, reflecting the fact that Iran, Saudi Arabia and the UAE sat around the same table. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is not mentioned at all, a regression from past declarations and a troubling sign that Putin has no interest in ending the fighting. The text condemns ‘indiscriminate rising tariffs’ and ‘unilateral sanctions’ without naming the USA, sparing the blushes of members such as India, which is reportedly finalising a trade deal with Washington. The declaration preserves consensus at the expense of resolve.

Closed civic space, open defiance

Most BRICS governments have no fear of being held domestically accountable for the compromises they have made. Civic space is closed in seven of BRICS’ 11 states and obstructed or repressed in the rest. Russia jails and exiles opposition voices and has made protest almost impossible. China subjects its people to mass surveillance and crushes any expression that departs from ruling-party lines. Iran violently suppresses protest movements, including through the death penalty. Saudi Arabia and the UAE recognise no legitimate role for independent civil society. Host and self-styled mediator India has seen Modi’s government erode press freedom, restrict civil society funding and stoke hostility towards religious minorities.

Domestic repression translates directly into a closed international forum. After 18 summits, BRICS still has no treaty, no published membership criteria, no permanent secretariat, no budget and no mechanism for civil society to hold its members to account. This is no accident. It leaves powerful leaders free to pursue their interests, and it means civil society has less influence in BRICS than in comparable blocs such as the G20, and much less than in UN processes.

Civil society mobilised regardless. Three weeks before the summit, over 200 delegates from farmers’ organisations, people’s movements, trade unions, women’s organisations and other civil society groups gathered in New Delhi for the People’s BRICS Summit. Its resolution denounced BRICS states for reproducing extractivist, inequitable development models, and insisted that cooperation between global south states be judged by the dignity and rights it delivers to people and communities, not by the freedom it grants states and capital. It called for debt restructuring, a publicly accountable energy transition, food sovereignty, universal social security, women’s political representation and an end to the persecution of civil society activists, and for BRICS to take a clear stand against military intervention, occupation and genocide. BRICS governments chose not to listen.

Ambition without accountability

BRICS’ biggest ambition, on display in the New Delhi Declaration, is to reshape international finance. Development of payment systems independent of the US dollar would chip away at the USA’s unique ability to sustain its power by printing more dollars, despite mountainous debt, to meet unceasing demand. But it would also let repressive states such as Iran and Russia sell oil and gas more easily, funding their repression while blunting international sanctions.

This ambition comes with no commitment to accountability. The bloc has no channel through which the people most affected by its decisions can make their voices heard, and no human rights conditions are attached to its initiatives.

None of the emerging responses to the rapidly changing international order promises to be more democratic than the current system. So far, neither BRICS nor any of the other alternatives now taking shape has matched its growing ambition with greater accountability.

Samuel King is a researcher at CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation, working on ENSURED: Shaping Cooperation for a World in Transition, a Horizon Europe-funded project. Inés M. Pousadela is CIVICUS Head of Research and Analysis, co-director and writer for CIVICUS Lens and co-author of the State of Civil Society Report. She is also Professor of Comparative Politics at Universidad ORT Uruguay.

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

Rob Jetten, Prime Minister of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, addresses the High-level Meeting on Climate Action and the Just Transition on September 23. Credit: UN Photo/Laura Jarriel

By Oritro Karim
UNITED NATIONS, Sep 29 2026 (IPS)

The United Nations 2026 Climate Summit addressed critical strategies to mitigate the compounding impacts of the climate crisis and accelerate progress toward the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

The summit brought together civil society actors, climate scientists, major energy producers and consumers, development experts, and world leaders on September 23 as part of the High-Level Week of the 81st session of the General Assembly (UNGA 81).

“The world is crying out for climate justice in mitigation, adaptation, and finance. We must answer that call with action, and we don’t have a moment to lose,” said UN Secretary-General António Guterres in his opening remarks. “But emissions are still rising when they must plummet, and fossil fuel expansion continues, defying science, economics, and common sense.”

“We have seen our fossil fuel dependence wreak havoc, driving up costs, draining budgets, squeezing households, and leaving countries at the mercy of conflicts and decisions far beyond their borders. Meanwhile, fossil fuel companies are banking windfall profits while everyday people foot the bill. Doubling down on oil and gas will only lock in vulnerability for decades,” Guterres added.

Nearly a decade after the adoption of the Paris Agreement, the summit comes as climate experts warn of a dangerous new phase in the global climate crisis. New findings project it is virtually “inevitable” that global temperatures will exceed 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels within the next ten years.

This overshoot presents widespread, multifaceted risks—from extreme weather patterns to escalating public health emergencies. Intensifying heatwaves, droughts, wildfires, storms, and floods continue to cause millions of deaths annually, drive mass displacement, and destroy critical infrastructure, particularly in low-lying coastal regions.

Prime Minister Tarique Rahman of Bangladesh—one of the world’s most climate-vulnerable regions—warned the General Assembly that up to 18 percent of the country’s coastal land could be entirely submerged by rising seas, endangering the security and livelihoods of tens of millions. President Naiqama Lalabalavu of Fiji also emphasized that over half of his country’s population lives within a kilometer of the shore, leaving communities at a significant risk of being exposed to natural disasters. He further noted that the stock of fish available to each Fijian is estimated to decline by nearly 25 percent by 2050, threatening widespread food insecurity across the region.

The compounding impact of these disasters is also linked to depressed crop yields—which significantly impact food insecurity, accelerate biodiversity loss, and cause widespread disease outbreaks. Higher temperatures directly drive the spread of vector-borne illnesses, while rising sea levels and flooding exacerbate waterborne diseases. As a result, countries worldwide continue to sustain massive economic and human costs while aid organizations and health sectors struggle to keep up with the influx of needs.

Tarique Rahman, Prime Minister of Bangladesh, addresses the High-level Meeting on Climate Action and the Just Transition. Credit: UN Photo/Laura Jarriel

“We just lived through the hottest July and August on record. Global sea surface temperatures are at a record high, and the worst is yet to come,” said Celeste Saulo, Secretary-General of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). “We enter a dangerous terrain where we’re likely to cross a number of tipping point systems that not only regulate the stability of the climate system, but also fundamentally determine life support for human development.”

Numerous speakers also underscored the severity of an immensely powerful “Super El Niño” rapidly forming in the Pacific Ocean, which WMO has described as potentially the strongest in at least a millennium. Data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Climate Prediction Center indicate a 90 percent chance that this El Niño will mark one of the most extreme weather events of the 2026-2027 winter.

Saulo warned that the global impacts of the impending El Niño will be massive and long-lasting and will cause 2026 to become the hottest year on record. Yvonne Aki-Sawyerr, Mayor of Freetown, Sierra Leone, told the General Assembly that damages in Africa alone could exceed USD 20 billion, with comparable losses projected across other highly climate-vulnerable regions.

The summit sets new goals for the international community: to return global temperatures to below 1.5°C as quickly as possible, limit the severity and duration of ongoing impacts from the overshoot, and facilitate the global transition to renewable energy. Guterres warned that the current generation sits at a critical turning point—it is the first to possess the tools to end the climate crisis and the last with the opportunity to avert a “climate catastrophe.”

The main pathways for climate action highlighted during the summit included increased intergovernmental cooperation, sustained investment in climate adaptation and resilience monitoring systems, and wider-scale deployment of renewable energy. In recent years, renewables have become significantly cheaper than traditional fossil fuels—such as coal, oil, and natural gas—while generating far lower emissions, facilitating sustainable development, and potentially averting hundreds of billions of dollars in climate-related losses worldwide.

While countries representing roughly 90 percent of all global emissions have submitted updated Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs)—signaling widespread political commitment to the Paris Agreement in the midst of heightened geopolitical tensions—current NDCs are projected to continue to fall short of the emission reductions required to prevent an overshoot of the 1.5°C target.

Michael R. Bloomberg, the UN Secretary-General’s Special Envoy on Climate Ambition and Solutions and also founder of Bloomberg and Bloomberg Philanthropies, told the General Assembly that current financial contributions from the international community are insufficient, warning that these gaps in funding “can mean the difference between life and death.”

“More countries recognize that clean energy is essential to their security and economic stability. At the same time, while there’s still not enough climate funding going to developing countries, the amount has more than doubled since the Paris Agreement took effect,” said Bloomberg. “Now, we all know that’s not enough. Every day brings new evidence of the worsening harms of climate change.”

“No place on Earth is safe from climate change. Countries need more investment in resilient measures that protect people and in modern connected grids that will support the waves of clean energy installation. Both will require more of the kind of collaboration that has enabled progress over the past decade across government and business, philanthropy, nonprofits, and community leaders.”

IPS UN Bureau Report

A Rohingya refugee carries Myanmar's national flag during a Genocide Remembrance Day rally marking the anniversary of their mass exodus at a refugee camp in Bangladesh on 25 August 2026. Credit: Abdul Goni/AFP

By Andrew Firmin
LONDON, Sep 25 2026 (IPS)

On 15 September, Norwegian police and security services raided the headquarters of Telenor in Oslo. Authorities accuse the multinational telecoms company, majority owned by the Norwegian state, of aiding and abetting crimes against humanity in Myanmar and breaching sanctions.

Telenor sold its Myanmar subsidiary in March 2022, in the wake of the military coup that ousted the country’s democratically elected government in February 2021. An August 2025 Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation investigation reported that ahead of its exit, Telenor had complied with military requests to hand over customer data. It’s alleged that call log and location data may have helped the military track, capture and kill democracy activists, including campaigner Ko Jimmy, executed in July 2022.

Civil society warned of the dangers when Telenor prepared to sell its subsidiary to a joint venture between a Lebanese group and Thein Win Zaw, a Burmese entrepreneur accused of having close military ties. It has kept up the struggle for accountability. Justice for Myanmar, a covert activist group, worked with the International Commission of Jurists to collect documentary evidence on Telenor’s role and filed police complaints in December 2024 and October 2025.

Telenor is also subject to a lawsuit brought by a group of civil society organisations last October, alleging the company passed on data of over 1,200 people. In addition, the company has been found in breach of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises on Responsible Business Conduct.

International complicity

The Telenor case focuses attention on the wider networks of companies and states that are propping up the regime and keeping Myanmar’s civil war going.

Following the coup, almost all states refused to recognise Myanmar’s military rulers and continued to regard the exiled National Unity Government as the country’s legitimate representative. But several authoritarian states have since swung behind the junta. Russia leads the pack, with Vladimir Putin hosting junta leader Min Aung Hlaing for repeat visits in Moscow. China, India, Singapore and Thailand have joined Russia in supplying weapons.

Many Chinese companies collaborate with the regime, among them Geedge Networks, a tech company with close links to the Chinese state that specialises in online surveillance. The company is helping the military install a version of China’s ‘great firewall’ so it can systematically restrict internet use, access users’ data and identify and track down dissenters.

The junta made a concerted effort to gain international legitimacy with a sham election in December 2025 and January 2026. It extensively prepared the ground by replacing the civilian electoral commission with a military-controlled body, banning pro-democracy parties and prohibiting political rallies, ensuring a military puppet party faced only token opposition. A new election law enabled it to criminalise over 300 people for criticising the election. Authorities jailed some merely for liking social media posts and handed 37-year sentences to eight activists for taking part in a protest calling for a boycott. There were also reports of threats to withhold aid from displacement camps unless people voted.

After the military’s party duly won, Min Aung Hlaing transitioned from general to civilian and became president in April. That same month, a group of civil society organisations filed a complaint against him in Indonesia over his role in the 2017 genocide of Rohingya people. Despite this legal action and the election’s evident lack of credibility, an array of non-democratic states including Belarus, China and Russia were happy to endorse the result.

While the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) didn’t recognise the election, its most authoritarian members, Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam, backed it anyway, and the bloc has consistently stuck with its failed Five Point Consensus, a plan agreed with the junta in April 2021 that the military has never respected.

The US government has also shifted its position. In 2025, the Trump administration cut funding to independent Burmese media, lifted sanctions against junta-controlled businesses and arms dealers supplying the regime and removed protections from Burmese refugees living in the USA, citing governance improvements. It treated the junta as a legitimate counterpart by sending it a letter about tariffs. In May, it was revealed the junta gives Roger Stone, a long-time Donald Trump ally, US$50,000 a month to rebuild relations with the USA. Mineral deposits are likely in the Trump administration’s sights.

Civil war continues

The Telenor raid has momentarily brought Myanmar back into the headlines. Its civil war has otherwise gone on for almost five and a half years with little global attention. Sparked by the army’s violent suppression of democracy protests, it pits the military against armed pro-democracy forces, both backed by a variety of ethnic militia. The army controls the main population centres and has recently regained some territory, but there’s no end in sight.

The army has committed numerous crimes against humanity and war crimes. A September 2025 UN report painted a harrowing picture of airstrikes on schools and the destruction of villages. This year, the conflict has escalated across the Magway Region, with the army and associated militia mounting armed assaults on villages, burning homes and using drones to kill civilians, including children.

Recent escalations of conflict have driven further displacement. At the same time, monsoon rains across several regions in July and August caused floods that left villages isolated and increased disease risks. As needs have grown, the healthcare system is collapsing due to military attacks on facilities and workers, while humanitarian aid and vital health supplies are further constrained by military checkpoints, road closures and movement restrictions.

The Telenor case has the potential to challenge impunity. It should refocus the minds of democratic states and companies headquartered in them, offering a warning that they can be exposed for complicity in the junta’s atrocities. It should give fresh impetus to civil society’s efforts to hold states and companies to account. By standing with civil society, in Myanmar and around the world, democratic states can put themselves on the side of human rights and justice.

Andrew Firmin is CIVICUS Editor-in-Chief, 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

Credit: IAEA
 
IAEA’s 70th General Conference highlights growing strains on safeguards and nuclear security as attention shifts to the first review of the Nuclear Weapons Ban Treaty.

By Katsuhiro Asagiri
VIENNA, Sep 24 2026 (IPS)

The international nuclear order is facing another test as governments move from an inconclusive review of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in New York to renewed disputes over safeguards and nuclear security in Vienna—and toward the first Review Conference of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) later this year.

The 70th General Conference of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), held in Vienna from September 14 to 18, came less than four months after the 11th NPT Review Conference ended without consensus on a substantive outcome.

It was the third consecutive NPT Review Conference, following those in 2015 and 2022, to conclude without agreement on substantive conclusions and recommendations—underscoring the growing difficulty of reaching consensus amid heightened nuclear risks and geopolitical tensions.

UN Secretary-General António Guterres expressed disappointment at the outcome while reaffirming the NPT as a cornerstone of the global nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation regime.

The IAEA does not negotiate nuclear disarmament. Its responsibilities include promoting the peaceful uses of nuclear energy and applying safeguards to verify that nuclear material is not diverted to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.

Yet the issues confronting the Agency—from Iran and North Korea to Ukraine and naval nuclear propulsion—show how safeguards, nuclear security and armed conflict are increasingly intertwined with wider questions about the future of the international nuclear order.

Map of Iran

Iran remains one of the most difficult issues facing the Agency.

For the IAEA, the central question is not simply the political dispute surrounding Iran’s nuclear programme, but whether it can maintain the continuity and credibility of independent verification.

Restrictions on access and uncertainty surrounding nuclear material, including highly enriched uranium, have intensified concerns about the effectiveness of safeguards.

The issue has taken on an additional dimension following attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities. Beyond competing political and military claims lies a wider question for the international community: how can nuclear facilities—and the verification system surrounding them—be protected during armed conflict?

Ukraine Tests Nuclear Safety in Wartime

Ukraine presents another challenge.

The war has placed major nuclear facilities in or near areas of military operations, with the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant remaining at the centre of international concern.

The IAEA has maintained experts at the site as part of efforts to reduce risks to nuclear safety and security.

Russia and Ukraine have repeatedly accused each other of actions threatening nuclear installations. While those claims remain contested, the underlying issue extends beyond this war: international nuclear governance mechanisms must now operate in circumstances where a major nuclear facility can be exposed to prolonged armed conflict.

Water is used to cool processes at the Zaporizhzhya Nuclear Power Plant in Ukraine. Credit: IAEA/Fredrik Dahl

North Korea and the Limits of Verification

Credit: journal-neo.org

The IAEA continues to monitor developments in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea from outside the country and maintains its readiness to resume verification activities should political circumstances permit.

The case illustrates a fundamental limitation of international verification: even sophisticated monitoring institutions ultimately depend on access and cooperation.

More broadly, the Vienna conference reflected the growing difficulty of achieving consensus. Political divisions are increasingly affecting debates even within an institution whose work is largely technical, encompassing safeguards, nuclear safety and security, and peaceful nuclear applications.

At the same time, progress in other safeguards cases shows that multilateral verification can produce results when governments provide access, transparency and sustained cooperation.

Civil Society Bridges the NPT and TPNW

Hideto Matsuura, head of Nihon Hidankyo, addresses an event hosted at the sidelines of the 2026 NPT Review Conference. Credit Naureen Hossain/IPS

At the 2026 NPT Review Conference, Soka Gakkai International (SGI) was among civil society organizations advocating nuclear disarmament education, nuclear risk reduction and greater attention to the humanitarian and environmental consequences of nuclear weapons.

On April 30, SGI and the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation co-organized a side event examining extended nuclear deterrence through the lens of the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons.

Hideto Matsuura, an atomic bomb survivor representing Nihon Hidankyo, described how radiation-related illnesses continue to affect Hibakusha more than eight decades after the atomic bombings.

The discussion raised a question that lies at the heart of the continuing debate over nuclear deterrence: whether security should be viewed primarily from the standpoint of states or also through the lens of human security.

Such civil society engagement provides a link between the NPT process and the humanitarian approach that contributed to the emergence of the TPNW.

From Vienna to New York

The next major stage of the 2026 nuclear diplomacy cycle now moves back to New York.

From November 30 to December 4, states parties to the TPNW will hold the treaty’s first Review Conference at United Nations Headquarters.

United Nations Headquarters. Credit: Katsuhiro Asagiri

The TPNW does not replace either the NPT or the IAEA.

The NPT combines three pillars—nuclear non-proliferation, nuclear disarmament and the peaceful uses of nuclear energy—while the IAEA provides much of the safeguards and verification machinery supporting the non-proliferation regime.

Credit: IAEA

The three frameworks therefore address distinct but interconnected dimensions of the nuclear order.

The 2026 NPT Review Conference demonstrated the difficulty of reaching political agreement on disarmament and non-proliferation. Vienna, meanwhile, highlighted the practical challenges confronting verification and nuclear security amid armed conflict, regional proliferation disputes and geopolitical divisions.

The first TPNW Review Conference will now examine what the prohibition treaty can contribute under these conditions.

Nuclear-armed states remain outside the TPNW, placing clear limits on what the treaty can achieve on its own. At the same time, its states parties and supporting civil society organizations have placed the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons and their elimination at the centre of international debate.

When delegates gather in New York on November 30, the discussion will therefore extend beyond the implementation of a single treaty.

After another NPT Review Conference ended without substantive consensus, a broader question remains: how can established and newer multilateral frameworks work alongside one another to reduce nuclear risks, strengthen verification and advance nuclear disarmament?

From Vienna to New York, that question is set to remain at the centre of nuclear diplomacy in 2026.

This article is brought to you by INPS Japan in collaboration with Soka Gakkai International in consultative status with UN ECOSOC.

IPS UN Bureau

Dr. Agnes Kalibata, speaking at the opening ceremony of the Africa Food Systems Forum in 2019. Credit: Wikimedia Commons

By Agnes Kalibata
NAIROBI, Kenya, Sep 24 2026 (IPS)

I was born in Rwanda, but my family soon became refugees in Uganda during the conflict and unrest on the cusp of independence. My father was a teacher and went to great lengths to make sure I was well educated. My parents were also smallholder farmers, and I saw firsthand the challenges my parents and other refugee families faced.

After I received my doctoral degree from the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, I returned to a new Rwanda in 2005, managing a World Bank agriculture project with the government. In 2008, I became Minister of Agriculture and Animal Resources, and over the next six years, I oversaw the country’s transition from food deficit to food security, as Rwanda cut its global hunger index by more than 50 percent. We implemented what we understood to be true: effective deliberate agricultural investment drives poverty down.

Agricultural growth is up to four times more effective at reducing poverty than growth in other sectors, and it underpins food security besides. Yet despite that evidence, Africa’s agriculture sector faces an estimated $200 billion annual financing gap.

Less than a year ago, I joined the Global Agriculture and Food Security Program (GAFSP) as Co-Chair of the Steering Committee because I have seen firsthand how GAFSP is a collaborative platform that connects governments, farmers, civil society and leverages the private sector and multiple partners to tackle food insecurity. Among its inaugural investments was a 60 million dollar investment in Rwanda’s Land Husbandry and terracing program which allowed farmers to reclaim degraded land by mobilizing more than 10 times this initial capital, reached hundreds of farmers and contributed to land restoration, food security and poverty reduction all at the same time.

GAFSP’s Business Investment Financing Track (BIFT) has made its second allocation (its first allocation was to the African Development Bank). Announced at the Africa Food Systems Forum “Investing in Africa’s Agri-Food Systems: Nourishing Nations, Growing Jobs, Building Resilience,” Rwanda’s BIFT allocation is a concrete step toward the GAFSP vision that sharing risk deliberately, and cooperatively, rather than leaving it with farmers alone, moves capital that reduces food insecurity. This $6 million allocation has already unlocked $15 million more from IFAD, the Bank of Kigali and Aceli Africa – 2.5 times GAFSP’s own contribution – reaching an expected 215 farmers’ organizations and 35,000 smallholders.

What is most encouraging about this funding is the paradigm shift it represents against the challenging context of reduced Overseas Development Assistance. Capital structured to absorb risk can shift lender considerations to bring private finance into a domain the private sector has avoided, catalyzing transformational change for smallholder borrowers.

The central obstacle isn’t capital or conviction – it’s risk. Agricultural lending is constrained by the risk of accelerating climate shocks and by the practical cost of financing smaller loans. Roughly 90 percent of staple food production in Sub-Saharan Africa depends on rain-fed agriculture, leaving households with no buffer when a season fails. Farmers in low-income countries bear the highest burden of worsening weather conditions, while African countries lose the most GDP to escalating natural disasters, from drought to surging storms. Finally, the loans these farmers need are relatively small, and small loans cost lenders more to appraise and administer.

As Rwanda’s Agriculture Minister, coordinating across ministries to run programs like the Land husbandry program mentioned above alongside the One Cow per Poor Family – a critical source of nutrition for poor families taught me that risk-sharing across government agencies, communities and financiers is what makes ambitious programs work.

It is now a question of scale. What worked for smallholders in Rwanda can work for millions more, if development finance institutions and private lenders treat risk-sharing as standard practice. I have spent my career watching farmers do more with less. Give them the finance they’ve earned, and there is no question they will transform the food system to be more efficient, resilient and a stronger driver of prosperity at scale.

IPS UN Bureau

Credit: United Nations

By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Sep 24 2026 (IPS)

The world’s ongoing arms race is threatening to extend beyond planet earth—and spillover into outer space.

The US has deployed weapons in space and will use them to defend American forces, Air Force Secretary Troy Meink said last week, according to Cable News Network (CNN). His comments marked the first public acknowledgment of such capabilities, though he offered no details about the weapons or when they were put into orbit.

“Today we continue to ensure we remain ready to meet the challenges of evolving threats wherever they exist,” Meink told the Air, Space and Cyber Conference, an annual gathering hosted by the Air & Space Forces Association in National Harbor, Maryland.

The disclosure comes as the US faces an advancing space arms race with China and Russia, which are testing sophisticated offensive capabilities.

Specifically, American officials have said they are monitoring China’s development of a nuclear-capable partial-orbit hypersonic missile. US intelligence has also suggested Russia is developing a space-based nuclear weapon that could knock out satellites critical to weather forecasting, navigation, banking, shipping and emergency services — a claim Moscow denies, according to CNN.

The New York Times quoted Guo Jiakun, a spokesman for China’s Foreign Ministry as saying: ‘We urge the US side to stop expanding its military force and preparing for war in outer space”.

There have also been reports that “Russia could be planning to put a nuclear weapon in space, a threat that could disrupt satellite networks that are vital to everything – from communications to military operations.”

The multiple UN Conferences on the Exploration and Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (UNISPACE), have served as landmark global summits to shape international cooperation and policy for space exploration.

Convened at the Hofburg Palace in Vienna from 14 to 27 August 1968, UNISPACE 1 focused on the practical benefits of space technology and scientific exchange

Tariq Rauf, former Head of Verification and Security Policy, at the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), told Inter Press Service (IPS) , while appreciating the transparency shown by the US, this disclosure is the most consequential open acknowledgement by any spacefaring State of weaponised on-orbit capability since the erosion of the informal post-Cold War taboo on space weapons.

The testing began with the 2007 Chinese ASAT test and the 2008 and 2021 Russian ASAT tests., the 2008 US and 2021 Russian ASAT tests, and India’s 2019 Mission Shakti ASAT test — building on earlier direct-ascent ASAT programs pursued by the United States and the Soviet Union from the 1960s through the 1980s.

The US deployment converts a long-suspected capability gap into a declared fact, and it will be read by other delegations as confirmation that at least one major power has moved decisively from space “control” doctrine to operational deployment, he said.

For the UN Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPUOS) and the Ad Hoc Committee of the Conference on Disarmament on Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space (PAROS), the announcement raises four immediate questions:

(1) whether the deployment is compatible with the existing Outer Space Treaty regime; (2) what it means for the stalled draft Treaty on the Prevention of the Placement of Weapons in Outer Space, the Threat or Use of Force against Outer Space Objects (PPWT) and the EU Code of Conduct (EU International Code of Conduct for Outer Space Activities); (3) how the expert and policy community is interpreting the move; and (4) what practical steps the Committees can recommend to prevent a cascading arms race in space.

Rauf proposed five recommendations:

1. Convene an urgent joint briefing between COPUOS’s Scientific and Technical and Legal Subcommittees and the CD’s PAROS Ad Hoc Committee to develop a shared factual record of the announcement and its technical implications, avoiding duplicated or contradictory assessments across the two bodies.

2. Both PAROS Ad Hoc Committee and COPUOS should issue an urgent call for a moratorium on placing weapons in Space, urge the US to take down space weapons it has deployed and urge all spacefaring States to preserve Space as the common heritage of humankind and weapons-free.

3. Request, through the Conference on Disarmament Secretariat, that all spacefaring States with counterspace capability — not only the United States — provide voluntary technical briefings on the general character (though not classified specifics) of any on-orbit weapons systems, to reduce the information asymmetry currently driving worst-case assumptions.

4. Task the Legal Subcommittee with producing a technical working paper clarifying the scope of Article IV of the Outer Space Treaty as applied to conventional (non-WMD) on-orbit weapons, and the interaction of Articles III and IX with counterspace operations, to give delegations a common legal baseline rather than competing unilateral interpretations.

5. Encourage major space powers to reaffirm, at head-of-delegation level, existing voluntary moratoria on destructive kinetic ASAT testing, and invite additional States to associate themselves with such moratoria pending progress on a binding instrument.”

Jonathan Granoff, President Global Security Institute, told IPS placing offensive weapons in space is a very risky proposition.

The Outer Space Treaty has been instrumental in ensuring numerous benefits of outer space, including satellites and exploration. All major nations are parties including United States, Russia, China, India, Japan, and all member states of the European Space Agency. The Treaty in its first article establishes that space exploration and use shall only be for the benefit and in the interests of all countries and shall be the province of all mankind, ensuring free and non-discriminatory access for all states.

The deployment of weapons in space by the United States could easily be interpreted as violating that peaceful uses principle, he pointed out.

“However, there is an argument that putting weapons in space for defensive purposes only helps protect against abuses of the peace which is in the interest of all nations. This is not frivolous. The problem with that argument is that weapons used for defensive purposes can also be used offensively and the deployment of such weapons would indeed violate the the Treaty. Moreover, such a deployment by one nation will surely stimulate an arms race.”

There are several important questions, he said.

Should the entire world trust that the weapons the US places in space would only be used defensively to preserve the peace? If the US places weapons in space would this new interpretation of the Treaty stimulate other nations to do the same? Would it be wise to trust they would only use their weapons defensively?

Recall that President Reagan, addressing such questions, offered to share his Star Wars deployments of space based missile defenses with the Soviet Union. Would it be a good idea for the US to share space weapons technologies with other nations?

“The entire world benefits very much from the current military uses of outer space which allows the observation of the military activities of all nations thus helping stability. Such uses should affirmatively be protected and encouraged. Other uses that will lead to a new arms race should be prohibited. A protocol to the OST to prohibit offensive weapons in space as well as any anti-satellite weapons should be obtained”, declared Granoff..

IPS UN Bureau Report

A street market in Yangon, Myanmar’s biggest city. Residents are anxious about high inflation and also fear recent floods will drive food prices higher. Credit: Ant/IPS

By Guy Dinmore, and a reporter in Yangon
YANGON, Myanmar, Sep 23 2026 (IPS)

Isolated and at constant war with itself, Myanmar’s humanitarian crisis is deepening as global challenges far exceed the capacity to respond of a military regime increasingly focused on its own survival.

The climate crisis, soaring commodity prices triggered by wars in Europe and the Middle East, plus worldwide cuts in donor aid are all hitting Myanmar hard. The regime’s inability to govern a fragmented and restive country with nearly four million internally displaced people has been exposed to the full since it seized power over five years ago.

Widespread floods caused by heavy monsoon rains since July have affected over 470,000 people, according to an assessment by the World Health Organization. Cases of malaria and dengue have been increasing, as well as outbreaks of cholera.

“Everyone is starving and cut off. Yes, everyone is facing food shortages,” said an activist calling himself Bruce, describing the situation in Shwebo township in the north-central Sagaing region, one of the main conflict zones and rice transshipment centres hit by floods.

Local and international aid organisations struggle to get help through conflict zones where the military is fighting a shifting array of ethnic armed organisations (EAOs) and local resistance groups while syphoning off what it can.

“Armed hostilities, movement restrictions and administrative requirements continue to block access, underscoring the need for safe, sustained and unhindered humanitarian reach to vulnerable communities,” the UN Office for Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) said in a July bulletin.

“Myanmar remains one of the world’s most severe humanitarian crises, with more than 16 million people in need as conflict, displacement, protection risks and access constraints intensify urgent needs nationwide,” OCHA said, noting that by end-March “humanitarian partners” had managed to reach 1.6 million people.

Floods have driven up food prices, already exacerbated by rising costs of fuel and fertilisers caused by Russia’s war on Ukraine and Iran’s blockade of the Strait of Hormuz following attacks by the US and Israel.

All sides exact a price in Myanmar, Bruce said, with cargo trucks moving north from the regime-controlled city of Mandalay to Shwebo having to pay fees at multiple military checkpoints and those run by other armed groups. Farmers in neighbouring Shan state growing rice and tomatoes are also facing “devastating losses” and being driven into deep poverty, he said.

Shwebo has experienced power blackouts of up to 20 consecutive days. As darkness falls, residents do not dare venture outside for fear of forced conscription by the regime, especially in rural areas. Households pay levies to avoid conscription, even those with only single women.

Some people are being forced into a second round of conscription as the military struggles to replenish its ranks, stretched across the country. Over 100,000 people have been conscripted, according to some estimates.

At night authorities inspect mobile phones. If they find online games, evidence of Starlink use or unauthorised communication devices then the individuals are immediately taken for military service.

Inflation and extortion reach deep into prisons too, said Bruce, a former political prisoner. Skin diseases like scabies are common, and the cost of a particular drug bought by relatives has soared more than eight times, while even traditional medicines like neem leaves have gone up fivefold.

Prison staff and those manning checkpoints even take their cuts of peanut snacks, driving up prices paid by prisoners.

The numbers displaced by conflict continue to rise. Fighting in the central Magway region in recent months has added over 200,000 more since May, according to some UN estimates. People fleeing conflict are moving to safer areas, but host communities have limited capacity to accommodate them.

U Than is a farmer in the Ayeyarwady delta and was struggling to make ends meet even before recent floods hit the major rice-growing region, destroying crops and jeopardising the next planting season. Fortunately his land has been spared destruction, but everyone is keeping a close eye on nearby levees.

“Farming has become a cycle of borrowing just to survive,” he said, complaining that the cost of fertiliser has risen five-fold and that fuel is increasingly expensive and difficult to obtain.

“We are working harder, borrowing more, and spending more, but the income from our harvest is no longer enough to cover the cost of farming or even our basic living expenses.” Families are forced to cut back their spending on health and education.

Yangon, Myanmar’s biggest city, feels somewhat insulated from the recent natural disasters and ongoing civil war. But inflation is hitting the pockets of its six million people, including city officials and their families, who squeeze more money from residents on trumped-up charges or bribes to avoid conscription.

“The junta stooges are resorting to all sorts of methods, legal or illegal, to recruit people while at the same time making money in the process,” one long-time resident told IPS.

“Life in Yangon is morphing into a new normal, with people feeling less safe about their lives as crimes are widespread. So many cases of theft and robberies go unreported or under-reported.”

A cholera outbreak in central Yangon in August, the second in two years, was blamed on poor hygiene among street vendors whose cheap food is even more attractive as inflation bites. The regime responded by shutting down their businesses in six city townships. Outbreaks have also been reported in Sittwe, one of the last regime strongholds in Rakhine State, as well as flood-affected areas.

Reports that CCTV artificial intelligence and facial scanning technology were deployed at a checkpoint in Mandalay city have raised fears that the regime is adopting widespread surveillance controls pioneered by China, its closest ally.

Min Aung Hlaing, leader of the 2021 coup, has proved resilient and uncompromising in directing a brutal retaliation against the popular resistance and was confident enough to swap his general’s uniform for a civilian suit as president after tightly orchestrated elections this year.

The Independent Investigative Mechanism for Myanmar, set up by the UN Human Rights Council, stated in its annual report that its findings “show a pattern of deliberate aerial attacks on civilians, arbitrary detentions, torture and sexual violence committed by the Myanmar military.”

The military escalated its aerial attacks and other crimes against civilians in the lead-up to the elections, and these have continued unabated, the IIMM said, listing the targeting of homes, schools, medical facilities, religious buildings and camps for internally displaced persons.

“This underscores the urgent need to hold those responsible to account,” it said. The IIMM is also investigating alleged atrocities involving armed groups opposed to the military.

For the moment, accountability seems a distant prospect, at best.

Since Min Aung Hlaing’s assumption of the presidency in April, the former general has been accepted on official visits to Belarus, Russia, Kazakhstan, India, China, Laos, Vietnam and Thailand. The Trump administration has not rolled out the red carpet but has eased sanctions against some of the regime elite and is engaging on matters of particular concern to the US, such as scam centres.

The regime’s growing de facto recognition abroad poses a further threat to the struggling efforts to exert its authority in liberated areas by the parallel National Unity Government (NUG). Established by lawmakers ousted in 2021 when Aung San Suu Kyi and other prominent leaders were jailed, the NUG managed to conclude agreements in March with several major ethnic armed organisations (EAOs) in an attempt to forge a unified political and military resistance.

Calling themselves the Steering Council for the Emergence of a Federal Democratic Union (SCEF), the alliance has stated its commitment to a negotiated political solution that would end military rule and exclude the generals from politics.

“To get there we’re pursuing all available avenues, including military means,” a senior resistance official told IPS.

However, there is scepticism that Min Aung Hlaing will deal with the new collective entity and will continue to insist on bilateral ceasefire talks with individual EAOs while refusing to recognise the NUG as an interlocutor. Several major armed groups dependant to varying degrees on neighbouring China have also kept the SCEF at arm’s length.

“Substantive negotiations between the Tatmadaw [the Myanmar military] and SCEF members are likely to prove challenging,” Morgan Michaels, a southeast Asia defence expert, wrote in a recent analysis for the International Institute of Strategic Studies.

“Meaningful progress in Myanmar – whether political, economic or humanitarian – would need to start with a broad conflict de-escalation, which at a minimum would require ceasefires between the Tatmadaw and the EAOs. Unfortunately, the path to de-escalation is likely to be long and fraught with dilemmas.”

IPS UN Bureau Report

A group of armed defectors from the RSF arrives in the west of Omdurman on 19 August 2026. Credit: Ebrahim Hamid/AFP

By Andrew Firmin
LONDON, Sep 21 2026 (IPS)

Sudan’s civil war grinds on. It’s close to three and a half years since the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) militia began their battle for supremacy, and the two forces and their allies continue to slaughter civilians with impunity. As a recent UN report makes clear, the killing is enabled by numerous foreign powers that continue to supply weapons, personnel and logistical support. They have made a civil conflict their proxy war, and their self-interest is sustaining the killing.

Drone warfare

Things are relatively quiet in the capital, Khartoum, where the curfew was recently lifted following its recapture by the SAF last year, but the RSF still controls significant areas, with fighting concentrated in the Darfur and Kordofan regions to the west and Blue Nile state in the southeast.

Both sides now extensively use drones to kill civilians. In February, a suspected RSF drone strike on an aid convoy in South Kordofan killed three humanitarian workers and wounded four more. In May, a suspected SAF drone strike on a crowded market in Ghubaysh, an RSF-controlled town in West Kordofan, killed 28 people as they shopped for food. In August, another likely SAF strike on a court session in an RSF-controlled village killed 35 people.

The RSF are attacking El Obeid, a city of around half a million people in North Kordofan. RSF drones have hit hospitals and schools. People fear a repeat of what happened when the RSF took the city of El Fasher last October. The UN’s Fact-Finding Mission concluded that the ensuing massacre, in which the RSF killed at least 60,000 people, bore the ‘hallmarks of genocide’, with ethnically targeted killings and widespread sexual violence.

Humanitarian and civic space emergency

The war has caused the world’s largest humanitarian crisis. Over 11 million people have been forcibly displaced within Sudan or to surrounding countries, and around 20 million are experiencing acute food insecurity.

There’s a great need for the help civil society offers, but it’s hard for humanitarian organisations to provide aid because of security dangers and access and movement restrictions. The Sudanese government is also attacking the ability of civil society organisations to operate. In February, authorities revoked the licences of four organisations with missions to provide aid, help victims and promote peace.

Journalists, particularly women journalists, are under attack, making it harder to tell the truth about what’s happening on the ground. In January, the Sudanese Journalists Syndicate recorded that 14 journalists and other media workers had been killed in 2025. In December 2025, it was reported that 40 per cent of women journalists had experienced sexual assault, physical violence, harassment or threats.

Foreign powers behind the war

Sudan’s people can expect little help from the deadlocked UN Security Council. In August, the US government proposed a resolution to expand an arms embargo that currently applies to Darfur to the whole country, explicitly including drones. The Sudanese government condemned the proposal and Russia rejected it, which, given its veto power as a permanent member, means the resolution won’t advance further unless significantly watered down.

Russia initially sold weapons to both the RSF and SAF but more recently has swung behind the SAF, becoming a major arms supplier in return for gold and a potential Red Sea naval base. It’s joined by several other states with a direct stake in the conflict. The UN’s Fact-Finding Mission has set out how the SAF are using foreign-supplied drones while transnational networks are keeping the RSF supplied.

Alongside Russia, states that supply arms or other military support to the SAF, or have done so at some point since the war began, include Egypt, Eritrea, Iran, Libya, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Turkey and Ukraine. Those that have backed the RSF in various ways include the Central African Republic, Chad, Ethiopia, Kenya, South Sudan, Uganda and, most notoriously, the United Arab Emirates (UAE). Weapons originating from countries including Canada, China, Israel and the UK have also been used. In most cases, states deny involvement.

There’s ample evidence that the UAE extensively supplies the RSF with mercenaries and weapons via African transit routes, in return for gold and in the hope of securing a regional foothold. The UAE funded Colombian mercenaries who played an active role alongside the RSF in the slaughter in El Fasher. It was recently revealed that individuals and entities linked to the RSF’s leader Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, known as Hemedti, have acquired properties worth over US$24 million in Dubai, likely paid for with smuggled gold.

The UAE’s reliance on states that border Sudan to allow its convoys to cross brings the risk of conflict spillovers, as seen in alleged SAF airstrikes on a military convoy in Chad in August.

Push for accountability

A new initiative to hold foreign figures accountable offers some hope for justice. In June, the Raoul Wallenberg Centre for Human Rights and a group of civil society organisations made a legal submission to the International Criminal Court (ICC), asking it to investigate several foreign officials for aiding and abetting crimes against humanity, genocide and war crimes in Sudan. The submission provided evidence of the involvement of the governments of Egypt, Iran, Turkey and the UAE.

The ICC has an ongoing investigation into the situation in Darfur, scene of a 2003-2005 genocide. It has confirmed that human rights crimes committed during the current war fall under its jurisdiction as part of this investigation, and in June it announced it had ‘concrete evidence’ linking RSF leaders to atrocities in El Fasher.

It’s vital that leaders responsible for human rights crimes face justice, and this must include the leaders of the countries waging a proxy war. If there is to be peace and justice, the impunity of the foreign powers that are sustaining the war must be challenged.

Andrew Firmin is CIVICUS Editor-in-Chief, 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