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

A man carries his family’s food ration from a WFP distribution point to his shelter in Camp 11, Balukhali, Bangladesh, on September 24, 2026. Credit: Mohammed Zonaid/IPS

By Mohammed Zonaid
COX'S BAZAR, Bangladesh, Sep 28 2026 (IPS)

For Mohammed Dullah, recent cuts in UN food rations for Rohingya and other refugees in Bangladesh are not just spreading hunger but also forcing them to save on basic needs such as schooling and healthcare for his children.

“I was able to manage with my children somehow when I used to get $12 by going to work sometimes,” said Dullah, 59. “But since the reduction to seven dollars [per family member] a month, I can’t afford lots of basics anymore, like clothes, tuition fees, meat, or fish one or two times a month.”

As a result, his 15-year-old son has had to give up school to work in a market where he can earn about 6,000 taka ($49) a month to help sustain their family of nine.

Since April, food assistance has been allocated under a revised Targeting and Prioritisation Exercise (TPE) introduced by the World Food Programme (WFP). Households among the nearly 1.2 million refugees in Cox’s Bazar and Bhasan Char receive different levels of monthly food rations based on categories of assessed vulnerability.

WFP says the new system sets food aid at $12, $10 or $7 per person per month, depending on the household’s level of food insecurity. With money provided through UNHCR registration cards, families buy food from designated WFP e-voucher outlets.

Refugees limit what they eat and trade any surplus food for money to spend on healthcare, education, transport outside the camps and other necessities. For families with no access to formal employment, which is prohibited in the camps, even a relatively small reduction can result in making difficult choices.

Humanitarian agencies are warning that global funding cuts are driving up hunger levels. Children make up more than half of the refugee population in Cox’s Bazar.

“Conditions in the world’s largest refugee settlement are worsening at an alarming rate after nine years, with 35% of Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh expected to face ‘crisis’ or ‘emergency’ hunger levels this year, putting more children at risk of malnutrition,” Save the Children stated on August 25.

“Global humanitarian funding cuts, compounded by the resulting reductions in food rations over the past year, have exacerbated existing challenges which include overcrowded living conditions and limited access to clean water, nutritious food and livelihoods.”

A System Under Pressure

The Rohingya have been displaced from Myanmar over decades, with major waves of refugees arriving in Bangladesh in 1991–92 and again after the military-led violence of 2017. More recently, people have fled renewed violence in Rakhine State between the Myanmar military and the Arakan Army (AA), an ethnic armed organisation.

Nearly a decade after the 2017 mass exodus, many Rohingya families remain fully dependent on humanitarian assistance. Bangladesh restricts refugees’ access to formal employment, while humanitarian organisations provide food, basic informal education, basic healthcare, water, sanitation and other essential services.

International funding has come under increasing pressure. The UN and its partners have appealed for $710.5 million under the updated 2026 Joint Response Plan (JRP) to support Rohingya refugees and host communities, its lowest level in a decade. So far this year it is 50 percent funded.

WFP’s new assessment found that all Rohingya refugees were food insecure, but that severity differed between households. Households are newly classified into three categories: extremely food-insecure households receive US$12 per person per month, highly food-insecure households receive $10, and food-insecure households, which make up almost 70% of the total, receive $7.

The system is intended to allocate assistance according to need rather than simply impose a blanket reduction because of funding shortages.

WFP says that even the lowest level of assistance is sufficient to meet minimum food needs. But families and INGOs in interviews with this reporter describe a more complicated reality.

Dullah says he is unable to work because of a long-term illness, but his household was categorised at the $7-per-person level. According to Dullah, the family receives basic food items, including rice and cooking oil, but they have little left over to obtain other foods or meet other expenses.

As with other Rohingya refugees, Dullah has no legal access to paid employment, but the levels of food they receive force them to work.

“You cannot expect people to become self-reliant while preventing them from earning a living. If WFP and other agencies want us to rely more on ourselves, they also need to support legal opportunities for Rohingya refugees to work and earn an income,” he said.

“Even before, we struggled with not having enough food when we got $12,” said Dullah, who worries about his children’s growth development. His 18-month-old granddaughter needs infant formula because her mother, lacking in food, struggled to meet the child’s needs by natural feeding.

WFP essentially categorised households according to their composition.

For example, the Extremely Food Insecure bracket includes those headed by a child or by a person with disabilities, female-headed households without an able-bodied adult man aged 18–59, elderly-headed households without an able-bodied adult man, households with two or more persons with disabilities, and one-member households.

The main category of food insecurity covers male-headed households with able-bodied men and no members with disabilities, female-headed households with an able-bodied man and no members with disabilities, and households without females aged 18 to 49 or without members with disabilities.

Selling Food to Pay for Other Needs

Sawyedul Amin, 34, receives assistance valued at $10 per person for his household living in Lambashia Camp in Kutupalong. They fled Myanmar in 2017, losing their father on a mountain along the way.

He has two young children, a sick mother and a wife who has undergone two operations, one related to childbirth and another for a tumour.

“If we want to eat fish or meat, we cannot afford it,” he said. “We also have small children, which means we have additional expenses for them. I also have an ill mother, which makes our medical expenses even greater.”

Sawyedul said he sometimes sells part of his family’s food allocation to obtain cash for those expenses.

Selling or trading food for medicines or services is nothing new in the camps, and the impact has been well documented in earlier cuts.

In 2023 funding shortages forced WFP to reduce monthly food rations from $12 to $10 and then further to $8 in June that year. Monitoring found deteriorating food consumption and worsening nutrition indicators.

Sawyedul said other organisations previously sometimes provided his family with additional assistance, but some of that support has declined. “We now have only the WFP to look to for assistance,” he said.

Flaws in the Rationing System

Radia Bala, a 60-year-old widow among a refugee community of about 1,000 Hindus, had to survive with no assistance at all for five months this year. Her family, along with many others, eventually started to receive aid in July.

Radia, from Nakpura village in Myanmar, arrived in Bangladesh with her family in 2024 after fighting between AA insurgents and the Myanmar military spread through her area.

She recalls ground and air attacks, homes burnt down, and relatives and neighbours killed around her. The insurgents also targeted them for forced recruitment. Their escape involved a three-day journey, partly through mountains.

After reaching Bangladesh, Radia says her family received a smart card and initially received food assistance, cooking gas and soap. But then it stopped in December 2025. “I wasn’t given an exact reason by the authorities why it was stopped,” she said.

Radia now rents space in the house of a local Bangladeshi family from the Barua ethnic group. She is among nearly 150,000 newly arrived refugees who have not been provided with shelter, having crossed from Myanmar’s Rakhine State between December 2024 and March 2026.

Radia and her daughter, who has a six-month-old baby, work as cleaners to survive. “During those months [with no food aid], we ate only rice with leafy vegetables,” she said. When assistance was available, she said, the family could sometimes eat chicken, eggs and bananas.

Her experience highlights serious flaws in the system of allocating food rations, namely that access depends on registration and connection to the mechanisms through which it is delivered.

Radia says that when people from her community arrived in 2024, they were told that food assistance would be available if they stayed inside the camps. But she says the family found it difficult to remain there because of shortages of shelters, water, toilets and washrooms.

“We stayed in the camp for about a month in a relative’s shelter, but life there was very difficult,” she said.

Her family subsequently moved between relatives’ homes and other temporary locations. “We have been living from place to place, staying on the streets and in other people’s homes.”

After raising complaints and following media coverage of their plight, she started receiving $12 per person. But Radia says she needs to sell half of that to pay for room rent.

Her request is simple. “Our first need is food assistance, and our second need is shelter,” she said.

WFP says it provides monthly food assistance to all the refugee population, including people who arrived after 2024, according to their assessed need.

Risks for Children are Worsening

Golam Mostofa, head of Save the Children’s Cox’s Bazar Area Office, said children are increasingly exposed to risks as families struggle with limited resources and opportunities.

“The situation is getting worse day by day,” he said.

Child protection monitoring had raised increasing concerns over child labour and child marriage, as well as other risks facing children and adolescents, he added.

However, Mostofa cautioned against assuming that every reported case of child labour, child marriage, malnutrition or dropping out of NGO learning centres was caused by the latest food-assistance changes.

However, Save the Children’s current assessment warns that worsening access to nutritious food, healthcare and other essentials is increasing pressure on children.

The NGO predicts that by the end of this year, some 10 percent of refugees in camps in Cox’s Bazar will fall into Phase 4 of the international classification of “humanitarian emergency”, which is defined as leading to frequent deaths and increasingly high rates of malnutrition. This is defined as one step before famine and humanitarian catastrophe.

Mostofa appealed to donors to continue supporting food, education, healthcare, water and sanitation while also expanding opportunities for skills development and safe livelihoods.

The WFP Bangladesh communication team did not respond to requests for comment.

Refugees Face Dangerous Choices

While Save the Children has been working in Cox’s Bazar since 2012 with programmes for education, healthcare, water and sanitation and child protection, a whole generation of Rohingya children has grown up in camps which began as emergency settlements but have turned into long-term places of residence.

For families with limited access to formal employment, humanitarian assistance remains central to daily life. Continued civil war in Myanmar, driven by an entrenched military regime backed by China, provides little prospect of a durable solution that would allow the mostly stateless Rohingya to return to their homes.

Committing their lives to human traffickers and fleeing Bangladesh by sea in search of a better life is extremely perilous. An estimated 5,000 refugees are believed to have perished over the past decade while attempting to reach other countries in Southeast Asia.

Dullah still talks about returning to Myanmar, remembering the land he farmed and the cows and buffaloes he owned before his family were forced to flee in 2017. “I want to be able to return and rebuild my life,” he said.

As world leaders met in New York for the UN General Assembly, Bangladesh Prime Minister Tarique Rahman called for a clear roadmap for the safe, voluntary, dignified and sustainable return of Rohingya refugees to Myanmar, alongside continued humanitarian support, protection of civilians and international accountability.

Until that becomes possible, refugee families like Dullah’s remain dependent on an aid system based on calculations of dollars per person, while the choices they face are measured in meals, medicines, school days and the future of their children.

Note: This story was produced with support from Moving Minds Alliance (MMA) through the Reporters for Early Childhood in Humanitarian Crisis (REACH Network) Advocacy Stories Fund

IPS UN Bureau Report

 
CIVICUS discusses public art, gender-based violence and censorship in Iraqi Kurdistan with Tara Abdullah, a multidisciplinary visual artist from Sulaymaniyah who is currently based in Oslo, Norway as part of the Safemuse – Safe Havens for Artists residency.

Tara Abdullah

How did you become an artivist?

I’m from Sulaymaniyah in the Kurdistan Region of Iraq, and I’ve been using art to express myself since I was a child. I fought hard to get into art school. After ninth grade, I joined the Institute of Art and studied there for five years, then studied for four more years at the College of Fine Arts at the University of Sulaymaniyah and graduated in 2020. All in all, I spent almost a decade studying art and learning new materials and methods I could bring into my work.

Since I graduated in 2020, I’ve used art in many different forms, and over the past six years I’ve tried to bring art and activism together, mainly around environmental conservation and women’s rights.

Doing art as a woman here isn’t easy. Dogmas around culture, religion and tradition mean most forms of art are considered haram, or forbidden. Even inside the art community, I’ve found a kind of disgust towards certain forms of art, with people saying some things are too provocative or politically wrong. But reading monthly data on femicide and violence against women has pushed me further to try to use elements of the culture and society I grew up in to try to break the red lines set for women.

What was the Feminine Project?

It was a project I started in 2020, in which I collected clothes from women who had faced violence. I went door to door across thousands of homes in the city and surrounding towns to interview the women and collect a piece of clothing along with their story. I stitched the pieces together and hung them along a five-kilometre stretch of the city’s main street, leading from the main court to the public park.

This was my idea of a peaceful protest. Women here can’t speak openly about the violence they face. If they did, they’d face immediate backlash. Their clothes themselves carry shame. When women hang their washing out, they cover their underwear so it isn’t seen by anyone. I wanted to show that not even women’s clothes have the freedom to be touched by the sun, let alone the women themselves.

I put up a public installation rather than a gallery, because I wanted the public exposed to it, not just the small art community that already agrees with these ideas. By the end of the first day, people started tearing the piece down and burning parts of it, and it triggered a huge backlash online and offline.

What project did you work on then?

After the Feminine Project, I had thousands of stories from the women I’d interviewed. So in late 2022 I started my Voice Project. I turned the stories into a two-minute speech carrying the weight of all of it: honour killing, suicide, violence. Women here are expected to keep a low voice and never give their opinion. Decisions are made for them by men. So I created a voice for them.

I played the message through 66 synchronised speakers across four cities and three surrounding towns in Sulaymaniyah province, all at the same time. I used megaphones deliberately. They’re symbolically loaded because they are used in mosques by mullahs for the call to prayer. In most countries, anyone can speak, but here it’s always a man’s voice, whether it’s calling people to prayer or selling groceries. I wanted to show women also had a voice.

This caused an even bigger backlash than the first project. People started shutting down the speakers, and the mullahs pushed to bring me to court, accusing me of an immoral act against our culture, religion and tradition. They accused me of promoting homosexuality, which genuinely surprised me, because the piece was straightforwardly about violence against women. When the judge called me in for a statement, he asked whether I was promoting ‘queer ideology’. I replied that my work promotes individual freedom. The case was eventually dismissed, but I had to get out of the country and stay away for a few weeks until things settled down.

I think the backlash comes from the visibility. The art community is tiny, and art typically stays inside galleries where very few people see it. But when you bring it out into the public space, it exposes feelings the public didn’t know were there.

How do you manage the risks that this work brings?

For the Feminine Project, building trust with the women was very difficult. I had to reassure them I wasn’t taking photos or recording their voices, and let them check this was true. Even then, some rejected the idea outright, saying things like, ‘So what are you going to do, are you superwoman? Things won’t change’, or accusing me of trying to destroy their families.

None of the clothes in the final installation were tied to a name, so the women’s safety was protected. That meant all the pressure landed on me. I come from a very traditional, religious family who never approved of me going into art. When I was preparing the Feminine Project, I told them I was doing charity work. When the truth came out, there was a huge conflict at home, including violence. But this didn’t make me back down. Instead, it made me more determined.

I know that by undertaking these projects I risk being taken to court, being denied permission to work or receiving online smears and threats. But if I don’t do this, who will? I’m proud of what I’ve done and I’ll keep doing it.

What support have you received?

There are always going to be people for and against, but honestly, most public reaction leans against this kind of work. But I’ve also received some encouragement. Following the Feminine and Voice projects, many women contacted me anonymously to tell me how much relief the work gave them, as someone was finally saying what they’d wanted to say themselves.

However, most of the support I receive comes from outside Iraq. After the Voice Project, I was blacklisted and I couldn’t get any funding or permission for public installations, so I started applying for international prizes instead.

In 2023 I was shortlisted for the Future Generation Art Prize in Ukraine, out of 12,000 applications, for an installation building a bridge between Kurdish women’s experience of violence and war and Ukrainian women living through the current conflict, and I won the special prize in 2024. I also received the Alpine Fellowship Visual Art Prize in 2023 and the Prince Claus Seed Award in 2025. Researchers have written papers about my work, and in 2025, I showed a rough-cut documentary about the Voice Project in Warsaw and an indoor installation about Kurdish women’s experience in Kraków, Poland. That international attention keeps me going, and I use the exposure and funding to keep building pressure back home.

How do you collaborate with others?

I work as an individual artist. I bring in craftspeople and freelancers to help make each piece, but most of them ask me not to use their names. They want the money, not the association. I always explain the risk honestly to people, and many back out.

When I can, I bring in local women to do the work and pay them. For the Feminine Project I had dozens of women doing the sewing. For my environmental work, I try to involve as many women and young people as possible. For a water festival in 2025, I made giant puppets out of reed and recycled biodegradable material alongside 20 people, running workshops over 10 days so they could learn to use art to deliver their own messages.

Collaboration carries risk. When I ran a seminar on art and peace, security forces raided it on the second day and took me in for questioning. But my message to anyone facing suppression or violence is not to be afraid. Talk about it; bring it out into the open. You don’t have to be accepted by a corrupted environment around you to accept yourself.

For me, art is a whole universe you can fit everything into: your ideas, your beautiful things and the problems around you. You can use art to try to fix things. It’s the only weapon that doesn’t hurt or kill.

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

GET IN TOUCH
Website
Instagram

SEE ALSO
Iraq: ‘The proposed amendments to the Personal Status Law are an attack on women’s rights’ CIVICUS Lens | Interview with Mohammed Juma 07.Dec.2024
Iraq: ‘Tolerance for abuses against LGBTQI+ people has now been made explicit through legislation’ CIVICUS Lens | Interview with Sarah Sanbar 26.Jun.2024
Iraq: ‘We’ve submitted many bills, but parliament refuses to adopt a law against GBV’ CIVICUS Lens | Interview with Alyaa Al Ansari 07.Mar.2022

Sidi Haidara leads a community dialogue in Mopti, Mali, where families, young people and local leaders discuss girls' rights and ways to end female genital mutilation. Credit: UN Women/Dieneba Deme

By UNFPA
UNITED NATIONS, Sep 16 2026 (IPS)

In Mali, an estimated nine out of ten women and girls have undergone female genital mutilation (FGM). And for years, Sidi Haidara, a father and recognized leader in his community, believed the practice was simply part of life.

Like many people in his community in central Mali, he saw it as a tradition passed down through generations – one that should be preserved.

Today, he walks from village to village with a very different message: No tradition should come at the expense of a girl’s health, rights, or future.

His story goes beyond one man’s personal transformation. Across parts of West and Central Africa, FGM remains deeply rooted – with Mali having one of the highest rates in the region and no laws that specifically criminalize the practice. Even recently, some men in Mali have launched an all-male pro-FGM campaign on the grounds of protecting tradition.

In places where social norms are deeply entrenched, change often begins with trusted voices from within the community – voices like Haidara’s.

After spending years defending female genital mutilation, Sidi Haidara now leads community dialogues in Mopti, Mali, encouraging families to protect girls’ rights and abandon the practice. Credit: UN Women/Dieneba Deme

How UN Women and partners are shifting mindsets and empowering new anti-FGM advocates in Mali

“I used to believe that this practice was part of our traditions and needed to be preserved”, says Haidara.

Nothing suggested that he would one day become one of the people advocating for its abandonment.

His perspective began to change after taking part in training sessions, workshops, and community dialogues organized through the Men and Boys as Agents of Change project, implemented by UN Women with financial support from the Government of Germany.

As he listened to different experiences and learned about the consequences of FGM, he began questioning his beliefs – beliefs he had never challenged before. He also came to understand that lasting change cannot simply be imposed – it grows through dialogue, trust, and community ownership.

“UN Women’s trainings – with the support of Germany – transformed my understanding of female genital mutilation. I learned about the physical, psychological, and social consequences that this practice imposes on girls.”

How to end FGM in Mali: Begin with listening, questioning, and conversing

“Today, I regularly organize awareness-raising sessions with families, religious leaders, young people, and women”, he explains.

Rather than telling people what to think, he encourages conversations about what it means to protect girls and challenges long-held beliefs through dialogue.

Little by little, those conversations are making a difference. “I can see change: more parents are asking questions, several families are abandoning female genital mutilation, and discussions about protecting girls have become more open.”

“I am convinced that protecting girls today means investing in the future of our entire community.”

People can change – and so can social norms

Haidara’s journey is part of a broader movement taking place across the regions of Mopti and Gao in Mali.

With support from the Government of Germany, UN Women works alongside religious and traditional leaders, women, young people, and men like Haidara who are committed to community-driven initiatives that prevent violence against women and girls and challenge harmful social norms.

To date, 50 community initiatives have been implemented across the two regions, while eight community-dialogue platforms provide spaces for people to discuss girls’ rights, their protection, and ways to prevent gender-based violence.

For Haidara, abandoning a harmful practice is about more than leaving a tradition behind. It is about giving girls the opportunity to grow up safely, stay in school, and shape their own futures.

His journey shows that some of the most meaningful changes happen when those who once upheld harmful social norms become the people helping to transform them.

Haidara knows traditions do not change overnight. But every conversation creates an opportunity for reflection. Every family that chooses to protect its daughters helps write a different future from the one that generations before them inherited.

In Mopti and Gao, these conversations are showing that lasting change does not necessarily begin with a new law or policy. More often, it begins when communities themselves decide to imagine a different future for their girls.

Source: UNFPA

IPS UN Bureau

Excerpt:

On 11 September 2001 I was in New York, on one of my frequent visits to the United Nations, to which I was tied by a consultancy contract. That morning I woke up late, around eleven, sleeping off the jet lag of the flight from Italy. I was staying at the Hyatt Park, today the Millennium. A hotel a few metres from the Glass Palace, built to serve the world of the United Nations.

Roberto Savio

When I came down to the lobby, I was taken aback by an extreme state of agitation, from the staff to the guests. I tried to speak to a bellboy I knew, but he ran off without answering. So I went to reception, where everyone was on the telephone and no one paid me any attention. Finally, someone I knew told me: “They’ve attacked the Twin Towers!” And then she too rushed away.

At that point, with the professional deformation of the journalist, I went out into the street to take a taxi and get to the scene. But the street was deserted. Not a car in sight, and the few passers-by were running as well, certainly to get home.

So I did the only intelligent thing left to me, which was to watch television. The images were clear and terrible. But the anchors were groping in total darkness, in a bewilderment I had never seen. It was clear that this was an attack and not an accident. But by whom? And why? The CBS presenter was asking: “But who could wish America harm, when we have always helped the whole world?” And the one on NBC: “The Evil Empire is over, it set with the fall of the Berlin Wall twelve years ago. Where does this hatred come from?”

New York comes to a halt

On the day of the attack, as on the day after, New York ceased to exist. The streets were deserted. Shops, restaurants, supermarkets, closed. There was no public transport. In my hotel, where the staff had not turned up, the managers improvised pathetic sandwiches, which was all that could be offered to the guests to keep them fed. Everyone was at home digesting the shock, avoiding unpredictable dangers, and watching television. Only on the second day, beyond the appalling images of people falling from the sky, of office workers and firemen covered in a mantle of ash, did figures and data begin to appear. And in those days, the American dream vanished.

The American myth and its crisis

The United States had been the clear winner of the Second World War. And from then on, the undisputed leader of the world, opposed only by the Evil Empire, the Soviet Union. But American citizens saw the socialist world as politically absurd and economically backward, a place people were constantly fleeing in order to take refuge in the world of freedom, democracy and prosperity, the United States. It was they who had set in motion the reconstruction of Europe, which, though historically the centre of the West, was by then an arm of American hegemony. And their aid to the development of the Third World had saved millions of people from hunger and famine. In the collective imagination, this took on enormous proportions, which had nothing to do with reality. Shortly before 11 September, the New York Times had published a survey according to which the American “in the street” believed that development aid amounted to anywhere from a minimum of 5 per cent of Gross Product up to 10 per cent. In fact it was 0.10.

The common feeling in those days was disbelief. In the history of the United States, Americans had first read about and then watched wars, massacres and every kind of violence as distant events, even when their own sons were involved, as in the Second World War. But they had never suffered an attack at home. And the fact that this had been possible was the first, subconscious feeling of distrust towards the institutions — which, with other events and with time, would become an important part of today’s political reality. Until then, polls had always recorded a serene confidence in a State that guaranteed security.

From the American dream to Trump and Musk

To make an effective analysis of how the American dream progressively faded would require far more space than we have. But let me try to summarise the threads of the carpet that slowly covered the United States we knew, replacing them with those of Trump and Musk.

First of all, it should be remembered that in the decade of the Eighties a number of things happened that carried great significance not only globally, but with great weight inside the United States.

The first was the Conference of Heads of State in Cancún, in 1981, convened by the United Nations to continue the dialogue for a New World Order based on cooperation and international solidarity, adopted by acclamation by the General Assembly in 1973. I was head of communications for the Summit, and I lived it from the inside. The 25 most representative heads of state of the moment were there, and from Indira Gandhi to Mitterrand, from Nyerere to Trudeau, all spoke of the need to strengthen international cooperation. When Reagan’s turn came, elected shortly before, his speech was categorical, and was later taken up by Thatcher: “American citizens elected me to serve their interests and not those of others. And therefore I do not accept the straitjacket of United Nations resolutions. From now on, America will choose its own road.”

In those same years, at American urging, the international community adopted the Washington Consensus, drawn up by the American Treasury, the Inter-American Development Bank and the World Bank. The consensus broke with the economic doctrines that had prevailed since the end of the war. It eliminated every social component, making the market and its laws of absolute competition the centre of society. The State was to withdraw from its central role and let the market take its place. Expenditure that was not immediately productive, such as health and education, was to be taken over by the private sector. And competition, at every level, from the individual to the global, was to be the yardstick by which success is judged.

The result was that many factories and companies moved to countries with lower labour costs and fewer controls. America lost millions of jobs, of people who until then had been a middle class — white, rural, with a social conscience. But the same happened in the rural world, of white, conservative Americans with little education and an unconscious racism towards workers of colour.

The wars and the financial collapse

Nor should it be forgotten that after the attack on the Twin Towers, the United States began the war in Afghanistan, from which it would withdraw ignominiously twenty years later. And shortly afterwards, in 2003, it began the invasion of Iraq, from which it withdrew in 2011, giving life to the Islamic Caliphate (ISIS), which would become a great element of destabilisation throughout the Middle East. During these years, Americans discover that their country is not invincible. It was supposed to overcome the trauma of Vietnam. Instead, the failure of the most powerful military machine in the world continues. In the end, all that will remain is a tragic balance sheet of ruins and dead, and a total expenditure of around eight trillion dollars. To put it in perspective, the American budget today is thirty trillion dollars.

But in my view, the final blow to the American dream came a few years later, with the collapse of Wall Street, an event which once again found me present while it was happening. Finance without controls had gone so far as to turn the stock exchange into a genuine casino, a place of ever riskier bets. Under Clinton, in 1999, a law was repealed which since 1923 had established a clear separation between deposit banks (those serving citizens and businesses, loans and mortgages) and investment banks, that is, banks of speculation. The capital of the deposit banks, which were not very profitable, flowed into the investment banks. Americans do not say, as we Europeans do, that they “gamble” on the stock exchange, but that they “invest” in it. And a great many citizens do so, as do their pension funds.

In 2008 the speculative bubble bursts, sweeps away Lehman Brothers, an icon of Wall Street, and gives rise to a crisis which obviously affects the whole world. It is calculated that all the countries of the world together had to commit some 20,000 dollars in rescue money for every citizen of the planet in order to avoid a total collapse of finance. In the crisis, millions upon millions of Americans lose their savings. Their pensions too are in danger. Since the decade of the Eighties, the bargaining power of the unions has been in continuous decline. Wages in real, purchasing terms have been steadily falling. Many citizens are struggling with precarious and part-time jobs with which they can barely reach the end of the month. Many have to hold down two jobs in order to survive. The poverty rate rises to 15 per cent, and child poverty to African levels. UNICEF’s figures are dramatic. And so begins the conviction that the elites are the enemies of the people, that politics no longer has anything to do with citizens’ real concerns. Electoral abstention increases. And so the immigrant, the labour force on which America was built, becomes the enemy who takes my job, pollutes my child’s classroom, takes my place in the hospital, and commits crimes and outrages.

Religion, sovereignism and the new right

It is not only politics that digs out this feeling of frustration and anger, which explains Trump’s great success. It is also religion. Fundamentalist evangelicals now number 60 million in the United States, and their message takes up exactly the economic and social vision of the Washington Consensus. We must compete, because God judges us by our success; whoever is poor is poor because he has not fought. They support an Israel that recovers its ancient kingdom of Samaria and Judea (and therefore a vast ethnic cleansing), because they preach that Jesus will make a “second coming”, a return to earth, only when Israel has returned to the time of Jesus. And in this world flourishes the sovereignism of Bannon, who wants to turn the right into a great international (later overshadowed by Musk, who wants an anti-system sovereignism of the far right). Catholic integralism flourishes, embraced by J. Vance, the vice-president placed there by Silicon Valley and a possible next President. The integralism that leads the Secretary of Defense (or rather of War, as he prefers it) to bring religion into the armed forces, to present the war against Iran in terms of religion. And a population in which the level of economic and social distress reaches 20 per cent sees the flourishing of the first trillionaire in history (let us look at a trillion: 1,000,000,000,000), who boasts of paying no taxes, eliminates American development aid, and dismisses tens of thousands of public servants without criterion.

The internet and the end of shared truth

Shortly afterwards comes the development of communications technology. In 2004 Facebook is born, Reddit in 2005, Twitter in 2006. All at once, millions of Americans find themselves connected to one another, bypassing the enormous media system of the United States, which was in any case in few hands. I was one of the great champions of the internet, until (I believe it was Bill Gates) someone launched a slogan: “Now it is not important to know; it is important to know where to look” — which brought me to a state of great concern. If I find, but do not possess, what I have looked for, it will slide off me, like water off a goose’s back.

But the problem is that the internet was not born as a common good, as a service for humanity. It was born as a source of profit, and with the orgy of available information, being consulted became fundamental. Hence the abandonment of any meaningful mechanism of ethical or professional control over the information in circulation. So, in order to keep the connection and not lose the user, priority went to the most sensational, extraordinary, striking information. Before long this would be exploited by creators of false or tendentious news, with a great flowering of conspiracy theories which, for example, see in the President of the Republic and the Pope a network of paedophiles covered by the secret services. I read, again I think in the NYT, that the FBI estimated at 45 million the number of people adhering to these conspiracies, which stripped the institutions of all legitimacy. And so the internet gave them a megaphone, which carried the most incredible ideas from the bar to the whole of society. And above all to the extremists, infinitely more fanatical than ordinary citizens.

Numerous studies and statistics tell us of the impact of the isolation that leads young people, instead of socialising, to shut themselves up in the internet, in a virtual world in which AI becomes the real friend and adviser. This falls upon a society that has always idealised the individual against the social, and where a winning political line sees in the reduction of the State the freedom of citizens, in taxes an unjust expropriation of the fruit of their labour, and in social spending, such as medical care, a clear socialist imprint.

Obviously, a reaction of suffering is under way in the United States. The Mayor of New York, who declares himself a socialist, has been elected, and other openly progressive figures are entering the field. But this is happening with a strong polarisation, with an intolerant and profound confrontation, which offers no glimpse, in the immediate future, of a path towards national consensus, but quite the contrary. Trump calls the Democrats “communists”, and politics has by now become the great instrument of division. The future does not look at all like a return to the America of dreams.

Bin Laden’s legacy and Europe

Bin Laden could never have imagined, in destroying the Twin Towers, that he would set in motion such a mechanism of destruction.

But his legacy is not measured only in treaties. It is measured also in everyday gestures, which we have stopped recognising as such. Today no one is surprised at having to arrive at the airport two hours before departure: shoes and belts in the tray, liquids in hundred-millilitre bottles, queues, scanners, searches. The new generations experience it as a law of nature, because they never knew the before. It was enough to turn up half an hour ahead, check in, and go straight to the gate. No controls. That world disappeared on a September morning, and it has never come back. This is terrorism’s most silent victory: not to have changed our ideas, but our habits, to the point that we no longer remember having had different ones.

We should also analyse how this mechanism did not remain in the United States. With different characteristics, and in a different reality, it spread to Europe as well. One need only look at the Maastricht Treaty, on which our European Union is based. Concluded in the Dutch town in 1992, at the height of the intoxication with the extreme capitalism of the Washington Consensus, it provides for obligations and competences in the economic field alone. The social field is part of an added document, which has no binding value. And now, out of 27 member states of the Union, a majority are sovereignist, and therefore opposed to any real power for Brussels. Next year we will have elections in Spain, France, Italy and Poland. Countries of great weight. If sovereignism prevails in these too, Europeans — who look upon Trump as an aberration — will have fulfilled his dream: to destroy the European Union.

Publisher of OtherNews, Italian-Argentine Roberto Savio is an economist, journalist, communication expert, political commentator, activist for social and climate justice and advocate of an anti-neoliberal global governance. He is co-founder of Inter Press Service (IPS) news agency and its President Emeritus.

IPS UN Bureau

An AfD election poster with the message: “Youth come to us”, reminiscent of both Nazi and Communist propaganda.

By Jan Lundius
STOCKHOLM, Sweden, Sep 14 2026 (IPS)

During summer months there is a certain news drought. Nevertheless, this year social media has been crowded with news from wars in the Middle East and Ukraine, while customary tales about grisly murders have not been neglected. In Sweden it is election year and summer reporting has been supplemented by a debate about “hate speech against ethnic groups”. If individual tragedies connected with murders upset people, many seem to be indifferent to the fact that entire population groups are targeted by politicians. Swedish social media is overloaded with outcries about “Muslim” immigration and concerns about Sweden becoming “Islamized” and in danger of being transformed into a new Afghanistan.

Prominent in this hyped propaganda are the Sweden Democrats. A nationalist, social conservative, and populist political party finding its roots in neo-Nazism. In the 2010 elections, this party entered the Swedish parliament with 5.7 percent of the national votes and it now reigns the nation in coalition with other right-wing parties. According to the Statistical Central Bureau, a state agency, was the Sweden Democrats with 18 percent of current approval Sweden’s second largest political party, after the Social Democrats, with 34 percent.

The Sweden Democrat’s chief ideologist is a former high school teacher, Richard Jomshof, who together with three comrades by the turn of the last century managed to steer away Sweden Democrats from the White Power Movement and neo-Nazism, while maintaining the party’s nationalist and anti-immigrant tenor. After the 2022 parliamentary elections the Sweden Democrats became part of the Government. Jomshof left his post as party secretary and became chairman of the Parliamentary Justice Committee, which prepares cases connected with the Swedish judicial system – courts, the prosecution service, the police and correctional services, as well as cases and laws related to the Criminal Code.

Jomshof used his position to propagate for a tougher stance against criminals with a “non-Swedish background” and to promote restrictions on immigration. One of Jomshof’s goals has been to warn Swedes about the “Islamization of our Homeland”. After publishing anti-Islamic cartoons on X Jomshof was close to be removed from his position as chairman of the Justice Committee. However, committee members sided with him while one of them characterized the accusations of “discrediting an entire population group” as nothing more than a common “political yap”. Nevertheless, a year ago, Jomshof stepped down as chair of the Committee, in protest after the Government had banned certain semi-automatic weapons.

After that Jomshof dedicated much of his time to write an “analysis” of Islam and recently published a book called Kafir, an Arab word for “infidel”, which has become a bestseller. Jomshof’s political stance and career as an “expert” on Islam is one example of the polarization that currently characterizes much of European politics – a tendency to turn any individual into a representative of an entire ethnic and/or religious group and throw her/him into one big pot where s/he becomes part of a one single problem – immigration.

Jomshof is an extreme nationalist representing an anti-immigrant political party, but that does not mean that every supporter of Sweden Democrats is a reformed Nazi and stout believer in Jomshof’s generalisations, likewise not every Muslim is a supporter of the extremist Islam Jomshof depicts. It is dangerous to bundle together individuals and label them all as extremists. Recently a young man equipped with sword and helmet entered a Swedish school and killed one pupil while gravely wounding two, a third escaped with minor injuries. He had apparently been inspired by the Norwegian Behring Breivik, who in 2011 massacred 77 people as a gesture to “combat multiculturalism and Muslim immigration”. In 2015, the Swede Anton Lundin-Pettersson murdered three persons for the same reason.

Gaining political advantages through xenophobia is just one ingredient in a larger European political landscape. That a small, marginal political party with Neo-Nazi roots after less than fifteen years ended up in the Swedish government re-confirms a phenomenon present all over Europe. On 15 September, there are general elections in Sweden and next year in France, Spain, Greece, Poland and Italy. All these countries have powerful parties with a nationalistic/xenophobic agenda. In France, the predecessor of National Rally was in 1972 founded by Jean-Marie Le Pen and then included some former members of the Nazi Waffen-SS. The Spanish Vox was established in 2013, benefitting from donations by ultra-conservative lobbies, such as HazteOír and CitizenGo. The Greek Golden Dawn was dissolved in 2020, after members of its top echelons had been convicted for serious crimes. In 2023, the Greek Supreme Court blocked its successor party, Hellenes, from participating in the general elections, a ruling that still stands for the elections in 2027. However, a plethora of smaller parties have taken up its agenda. The Polish Law and Justice Party is a conservative outbreak from the labor movement Solidarność, with a huge following and an agenda based on political Catholicism, strong conservatism, anti-liberalism, nationalism, and Euroscepticism. Brothers of Italy finds its roots in MSI, Movimento Sociale Italiano, a fascist party founded after the death of Mussolini. Through the general elections in 2013, Brothers of Italy gained nine seats in the Parliament, after obtaining two percent of the votes. According to the Italian polling and research firm Only Numbers, Brothers of Italy is currently Italy’s largest party and after the 2022 elections its leader, Giorgia Meloni, is Prime Minister of Italy. How could those originally small parties, some with a quite sordid background, in such a short time become so powerful?

One reason might be that by exposing outrageous and extreme opinions, which a political establishment would be ashamed of uttering, fringe parties might obtain attention from a generally liberal press. While warning the general public about such “fanatics”, liberal media spread their ideas and create an increasing interest. In a well calculated moment before the Swedish elections, Richard Jomshof published his untrustworthy and generalizing book about Islam. Although it was issued by a small and rather unknown publisher it received extreme attention by Swedish media – TV, newspapers and the web – and thus became an immediate bestseller. As Oscar Wilde once stated: “The only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about”.

A similar phenomenon is currently under way in Italy. In 2023, the general Roberto Vannacci self-published a book on Amazon, Il mondo al contrario , The Upside-Down World, sparking a furious backlash and drawing heavy criticism for its contents. The Italian Armed Forces quickly distanced themselves from General Vannacci’s ideas. The defence minister stated that he had “discredited the Army, the Defence and the Constitution.” Vannacci, grateful for all attention, continues to spread his homophobia and misogyny, attacking immigration policies and environmentalism, while defending Russia’s war on Ukraine. He is now a welcome guest on TV, participates in debates with reputed politicians and academicians, while he recently has founded a political party.

The recent landslide election victory of the AfD, Alternative for Germany, in the federal state of Saxony-Anhalt has sent shock waves through liberal Europe. While being part of the larger Federal Republic of Germany, Saxony-Anhalt hosts just three percent of the nation’s entire population and has its second lowest GDP per capita. Nevertheless, the victory of its Saxony branch now fuels AfD’s hope to take the reins of the entire German Republic. AfD’s ultra-nationalistic agenda claims that Germany has had enough of guilt feelings about the repression and mass killings of the Nazi Regime. The past has to be reinterpreted and the party now asserts that Germany is in need of “less Hitler and more Bismarck”, i.e. the Chancellor who in the 19th century united Germany under the slogan “Blood and Iron”.

AfD has accordingly re-introduced the concept of Völkisch, folksy, used by the Nazis to denote a battle against “radicalism” in the form of modern art and foreign influences, while fomenting pride in everything the Party deemed as “German”. However, the concept was older and originally developed in opposition to the socio-cultural changes of modernity. AfD’s Saxony-Anhalt party programme intends to purge ”slander” of Germany from school education. No funding will be granted to organisations maintaining sites of Nazi terror – AfD’s leadership has condemned Berlin’s Holocaust Monument as a “national disgrace” – and the the party has also demanded that the world-famous Bauhaus complex in Dessau ought to be closed. In the 1920s this learning centre was a highly influential focus of innovative approaches to art and architecture, until the Nazis closed it down in 1933. It did later re-emerge as a museum, research centre, and cultural landmark, being part of the UNESCO Heritage Sites. The Saxony-Anhalt branch of AfD is furthermore a representative of what has been called eastalgia, i.e. nostalgia for the times when Saxony-Anhalt was part of the Communist, Soviet dominated East Germany. Consistent with this perception and displeasure with the central government’s spending on Ukraine’s defence, AfD is a stout supporter of Russia’s war on Ukraine.

Before the 1990 reunification of West and East Germany, Saxony-Anhalt was an important centre for a polluting heavy industry. One of East Germany’s most famous authors, Monika Maron, wrote a novel called Flugasche, Flying Ashes, in which she described the bleak, contaminated land of Saxony. Since then, the German Federal Republic has successfully cleaned up the traces of a ruthless industrialization and gradually transformed Saxony-Anhalt into an increasingly green state. However, this initiative came at the cost of the shutting down of several large industries, resulting in increased unemployment. Since 1990, Saxony-Anhalt has lost 750 000 inhabitants, mainly skilled young people, who have moved to the “West”, a fourth of the state’s population. Those left behind are an aging population and unskilled, unemployed young people, while the state has been partly repopulated by immigrants coming from foreign countries. They now constitute a tenth of the population. This has left a fertile ground for a populist party attracting disappointed old people and depressed youngsters, presented with the chimera of a happy pre-war Germany and/or Communist East Germany, which in reality are now forgotten and probably never existed.

A general sense of insecurity, reduced GDP and increasing unemployment harass several Europeans, not least young people. An embellished nostalgia for an actually forgotten past, assumed to have been annihilated by hordes of immigrants and corrupt liberals, has made Europeans affected by ultra-conservative parties, promulgating hazardous and divisive ideas. Representatives of murky ideologies are by media provided an attention they do not deserve. Excessive media interest, especially when marginal fanatics begin to spread their poisonous seed, might strengthen their outreach. Critical analysis, research and education are despised by dark forces who deliberately divulge their message through easy-to-understand, diluted and digestible propaganda and fake news. An ominous development that demands urgent action.

IPS UN Bureau

Panelists and participants discuss Japan’s death penalty at a symposium examining capital punishment through the lens of human dignity, held on September 5, 2026, at St. Ignatius Church in Yotsuya, Tokyo. Credit: Katsuhiro Asagiri / INPS Japan

By Katsuhiro Asagiri
TOKYO, Japan, Sep 8 2026 (IPS)

A symposium examining Japan’s death penalty through the lens of human dignity was held on September 5 at Joseph Hall of St. Ignatius Church in Yotsuya, Tokyo.

Brochure of the Symposium titled, “Rethinking the Death Penalty: With Human Dignity in View.” Credit: The Association of Religious Leaders and Scholars Considering the Death Penalty

It was supported by eight organizations: the Jesuit Social Center, the Conference on Religion in the Modern World (CORMOS), the Japan Buddhist Federation, the International Institute for the Study of Religions, the Sophia University Institute of Grief Care, the Japanese Committee of the World Conference of Religions for Peace (WCRP), the Soka Gakkai Peace Committee, and the Institute of Engaged Buddhism.

The gathering brought together legal scholars, journalists, a bereaved family member, a former prison officer, younger participants and religious figures, each approaching Japan’s death penalty from a different experience and perspective.

Religious studies scholar Susumu Shimazono stressed that the purpose was not to decide whether capital punishment should be abolished, but to listen and learn.

The questions extended beyond punishment: how to support victims, prevent wrongful convictions and violence, and hold institutions accountable for decisions over life and death.

The international picture is mixed. Amnesty International reported that 145 countries had abolished capital punishment in law or practice by the end of 2025. Yet recorded executions rose to at least 2,707 that year, excluding unverified totals from China, North Korea and Vietnam.

Japan’s Justice Ministry has defended retention by citing public opinion and serious crime. But public support and justification under human rights principles are different questions.

Safeguards Before Irreversible Punishment

Prof. Makoto Ida. Credit: Katsuhiro Asagiri / INPS Japan

He also distinguished wrongful convictions from sentencing errors: even where guilt is established, overlooked mitigating circumstances may lead to death rather than life imprisonment.

He also expressed his view that hanging constitutes cruel punishment under Japan’s Constitution.

“Immediate abolition of the death penalty is not the only option,” he said.

Stronger safeguards, reviewing execution methods and temporarily suspending executions were possible steps. Ida argued that victims’ demands for punishment could not themselves justify capital punishment, while acknowledging their grief and anger.

Deterrence required equal caution. A 2012 U.S. National Research Council review found that the studies it examined could not establish whether capital punishment increased, reduced or had no effect on homicide rates. That was not proof of no effect.

Ida nevertheless urged that public fears be taken seriously. Reform must address organized crime and reoffending, rather than simply replace one punishment with another.

The Human Cost of Execution

Keiko Horikawa. Credit: Katsuhiro Asagiri / INPS Japan

She also recalled interviewing a former judicial research official involved in preparing the Supreme Court ruling underlying the Nagayama standard, the factors courts consider when choosing between death and life imprisonment. He disputed treating those factors as a formula for execution.

Horikawa’s book Kyokaishi (The Prison Chaplain) follows a Buddhist priest who accompanied condemned prisoners. She recalled his words:

“No one has ever been made happy by an execution.”

This was his observation, not a verdict on every bereaved family’s experience. It nevertheless raised a crucial distinction: completing a sentence does not necessarily end the suffering surrounding a crime.

Horikawa called for suspending executions and openly examining victims’ support, prison officers’ psychological burdens, costs and hanging itself.

A Bereaved Sister’s Unanswered Question

Nobuko. Credit: Katsuhiro Asagiri / INPS Japan

“I want to prevent reoffending and stop more people from experiencing this grief,” she said.

She resisted being assigned to either camp. Some bereaved people want execution; others want offenders to live with their crimes; still others cannot bear to think about the case.

“I think each is an expression of the grief that person carries,” she said.

Nobuko acknowledged that offenders retain human rights. “Recognizing the human rights of offenders does not, in itself, deny the human rights of victims.”

But who addresses the rights taken from those killed, and the needs of families left behind? Support should not depend on whether a family favors capital punishment.

The United Nations’ 1985 declaration on justice for crime victims encompasses access to justice, fair treatment, restitution, compensation and assistance. Punishment alone is not the whole response.

Nobuko asked a further question: “What kind of society would prevent people from becoming offenders who face the death penalty?”

Her conversations with prisoners revealed experiences of abuse and isolation. Understanding those histories does not excuse crime. But punishment after violence cannot substitute for examining whether earlier support might have prevented it.

She has begun creating opportunities for parents to share experiences. That is her choice, not an obligation other bereaved families should be expected to shoulder. Prevention also requires institutions, not merely individual goodwill.

“I am neither for nor against the death penalty,” she said, describing her determination to keep thinking about life, guilt and suffering.

Toshio Sakamoto. Credit: Katsuhiro Asagiri / INPS Japan

Former prison officer Toshio Sakamoto argued that restrictions on outside contact make changes in condemned prisoners difficult for society to see.

He also recalled his long acquaintance with Iwao Hakamada, who spent decades under sentence of death before his acquittal at a retrial in 2024. The case raises questions about interrogation, evidence disclosure and timely remedies.

Trust in justice depends not only on the authority to decide, but on the ability to acknowledge and correct error before irreversible harm occurs.

He also questioned increasingly lengthy life imprisonment. Japan’s life sentences permit parole in law; the issue is how public safety, victims’ concerns and evidence of rehabilitation are assessed in practice.

For Sorane Sakihama, a graduate student from Okinawa, studying in France first challenged her assumption that capital punishment was justice for victims. International exchanges later brought her face to face with people affected by wrongful death sentences.

Invoking the Okinawan expression “Nuchi du takara” — life is the greatest treasure — she connected her opposition to execution with her opposition to war. She emphasized creating spaces where young people can discuss difficult issues without needing settled opinions.

Sorane Sakihama, a graduate student from Okinawa, speaks about how international dialogue and her encounters with people affected by wrongful death sentences shaped her views on capital punishment, during a symposium at St. Ignatius Church in Tokyo on September 5, 2026. Credit: Katsuhiro Asagiri / INPS Japan

From Dialogue to Accountability

SDGs Goal No 16.

Sustainable Development Goal 16 does not explicitly require abolition. It does call for reducing violence, protecting children, equal access to justice, accountable institutions and inclusive decision-making.

That provides a practical framework: Are victims receiving sustained support? Can doubtful convictions be effectively reviewed? Are prison staff’s burdens recognized? Is prevention reducing harm? Can citizens obtain the information needed to judge the system?

Disagreement over abolition need not prevent scrutiny of these questions.

Can people change? What does atonement mean? How should society support victims and prevent violence? How much power over life and death should the state possess?

A new dialogue on those questions began in a Tokyo church.

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

IPS UN Bureau

Fawzia Koofi, former Deputy Speaker of the Afghan Parliament, says the country is experiencing gender apartheid.

By Ariel F. Dumont
ROME, Aug 20 2026 (IPS)

FIVE years after the Taliban returned to power, Fawzia Koofi, the former Deputy Speaker of the Afghan Parliament, denounces what she describes as “gender apartheid.”

Despite bans, terror, and the systematic erasure of women from society, Afghan women continue to resist through underground schools and online solidarity networks.

Koofi was also a member of the official delegation that represented the Afghan government during the 2020 peace negotiations with the Taliban in Doha, Qatar.

Since the fall of Kabul, she has been living in Europe after being evacuated from Afghanistan, where she continues to advocate for Afghan women and campaign for political alternatives to Taliban rule. Speaking with IPS, Koofi explains how the Taliban have systematically erased women from public life while describing the resilience and determination of Afghan women to continue resisting.

IPS: Three years after their return to power, the Taliban have gradually stripped women of all their rights. Today you describe the situation as genuine gender apartheid. How would you describe the condition of Afghan women?

Fawzia Koofi: Women have gradually lost their rights as the Taliban imposed increasingly restrictive measures through a series of decrees. In 2021, girls were banned from attending secondary school. Then, in 2022, women were barred from universities. In 2024, they were no longer allowed to study medicine, not even gynaecology.

Today, every field of education is closed to them. Compared with the first Taliban regime, the current restrictions are even harsher. Yet Afghan women continue to resist because they know education is essential, and their families understand that it is vital. They attend classes in clandestine home-based schools.

Most of these home schools are run by NGOs that pay teachers’ salaries and sometimes even cover students’ internet connection costs. They also provide online English and computer courses. These schools do not issue diplomas. Nevertheless, students receive an education that sometimes enables them to start an online business, pursue distance learning while remaining underground, or teach other young girls.

IPS: How do these underground schools operate, and how do women manage to escape repression?

Koofi: Officially, these schools do not exist; they are not registered. As a result, whenever the Taliban discover them, they can arrest the teachers, students, or those responsible for running them. That is exactly what happened to one of the networks I helped establish, for example, in Ghor Province, in central-western Afghanistan, and also in Badakhshan, in the country’s northeast. They raided the schools and arrested the staff. In other cases, however, they may be more lenient when members of their families attend these schools.

The curriculum focuses on science, computer skills, and English to help women and girls obtain scholarships, work online, or run online businesses. Some women who manage to build small businesses personally take charge of marketing in an effort to expand their activities. Unfortunately, without diplomas or accreditation, professional opportunities remain extremely limited for most women.

Many Afghan women living in exile devote a large part of their time to providing online education for women inside Afghanistan. We connect them with university students and try to teach them English or other languages. It is regrettable that Western governments repeatedly promise to defend women’s rights while failing to provide the funding or scholarships that would allow Afghan women to continue their studies abroad, return home one day, and help rebuild their country. The Taliban’s declared objective is to erase women from Afghan society in the name of Islamic morality.

IPS: Why do you use the term gender apartheid?

Koofi: Because, little by little, women have been completely erased from public life. Some women tell me that when they walk through the streets of Kabul and encounter Taliban officials or soldiers, they are often looked at as though they were criminals.

They are told: “You are not allowed to work or attend university, so why are you out in the street?”

That is precisely the principle of apartheid: separating a gender or a group of people on the basis of their sex, race, or religion and excluding them from society. That is exactly what the Taliban are doing.

The silence of the international community is deeply regrettable. Some governments occasionally condemn the Taliban system, but that is where it ends.

Even worse, they adopt the same kind of practices.

The United Kingdom, for instance, continues to say, “We support Afghan women,” while refusing to grant student visas for fear that applicants might later seek political asylum. It makes no sense. How many of them would actually do so? Two hundred students? In a situation where they can neither study nor work in their own country, it should not be considered a problem if they apply for asylum.

All these contradictions, together with the international community’s lack of action, only encourage and strengthen the Taliban, who interpret this as a form of recognition and legitimacy.

Many experts say that women are disappearing from public space in Afghanistan. Do you agree with that assessment?

Koofi: Imagine the reality faced by women living there today, who are not even allowed to leave their homes freely. Take humanitarian aid distribution as an example.

In many regions, aid distribution is controlled by the Taliban with the assistance of the local councils they have appointed. Beneficiaries are selected from among relatives or supporters.

Single women, such as war widows with dependent children, or women who lost their jobs under Taliban rule, are excluded from receiving aid. And when they protest, the local council members appointed by the Taliban report them, and they are arrested.

There have been cases of sexual violence in Taliban prisons.

The Taliban have locked down the entire system by systematically controlling the country and all its institutions. If local council members rebel or fail to cooperate sufficiently, they are simply replaced. That is how the system functions.

Yet women continue to resist and to protest in order to survive, although it is far from easy. Some open beauty salons or small shops inside their homes. A few television channels that have reached agreements with the Taliban and comply with censorship are still allowed to employ women, but they are required to wear face masks while on air. In effect, they have become spokespersons for the Taliban, who tightly control the news that they broadcast.

Are there still any spaces where women can enjoy some degree of freedom?

They are becoming increasingly rare. Last month in Herat, in western Afghanistan, the Taliban arrested more than 60 women who were not wearing the burqa but instead a large headscarf in keeping with local tradition. Their families and other women protested, and for once, men also took to the streets. The Taliban responded by opening fire. To them, human life has very little value. They arrest, imprison, torture, and kill.

On April 28, they arrested three members of my family as well as one of our gardeners. They then confiscated my house. My relatives were held in solitary confinement for a week and tortured. We managed to mobilise social media, and my family was eventually released. All this simply because I am able to speak to the media and communicate with the United Nations Assistance Mission in Kabul.

In most cases, however, families do not even know where their loved ones are being held. They can disappear for months. The media do not report these cases because they are controlled by the Taliban. This is the reality for everyone. Women continue to write and to protest through social media, each in their own way.

Do you feel that the world has forgotten Afghanistan and Afghan women?

Yes. The world paved the way for the Taliban’s return.

Let us remember the Doha Agreement signed between the Taliban and the United States, which says absolutely nothing about the condition of women or about human rights in general. A

ll of this encouraged the Taliban.

I took part in those negotiations, and the Taliban told me that women’s rights were not among the priorities of my American and European friends. Unfortunately, they were right.

Now the European Union has invited the Taliban to negotiate the return of Afghans living abroad irregularly or individuals considered to pose a security threat. This approach is rather strange and paradoxical because as long as conditions in Afghanistan do not improve, people will continue to want to leave.

Everyone living in the country wants to leave. I speak by telephone every day with Afghans, and every one of them tells me they want to leave. Without work, without education, and without freedom, there is no dignity.

It is absurd. The European Union is engaging with the Taliban, who will simply exploit these negotiations for their benefit.

The attention of Western countries, and indeed of the world as a whole, is focused on other major conflicts. I believe this is a mistake because, sooner or later, Afghanistan will become a rear base for several violent extremist groups.

The Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), the Islamic State (ISIS), and Al-Qaeda remain highly active in the region. In fact, Al-Qaeda’s leader was killed only two kilometres from the Taliban presidential palace in July 2022.

To claim that the Taliban will effectively fight these groups while allowing them to govern the country is, in my view, sheer hypocrisy. The world must act before it is too late. We are not asking for NATO troops to return. Rather, we are asking governments not to encourage or support the Taliban.

Unfortunately, I have the feeling that human rights — and women’s rights in particular — are simply not considered a strategic issue or a priority. That is the reality.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau

 
CIVICUS discusses the challenges posed by Paraguay’s ‘anti-NGO law’ with Hugo González, executive director of the Paraguayan Network of LGBTQ+ Artists (REPAR+), a civil society organisation (CSO) that promotes the rights of LGBTQI+ people, which has joined the constitutional challenge against this law.

Hugo González

What are the problems with Law 7363?

The law was enacted in November 2024, and its regulations came into force in October 2025. It applies to CSOs that receive or manage private or public funds from national or international sources and use those funds to influence public policy or state activities. The regulatory decree defines influence broadly, including reports, press releases and other forms of public expression.

The law establishes a public register administered by the Ministry of Economy and Finance and requires balance sheets, minutes, supporting documents and annual reports on programmes, beneficiaries, professionals, staff and affiliated entities. It also prohibits reference to donor confidentiality to circumvent these controls and provides for sanctions ranging from a formal warning to suspension and deregistration.

Civil society doesn’t oppose transparency. We were already complying with civil, labour, tax and anti-money laundering obligations, so this law was unnecessary. We call it the ‘big stick law’ because it duplicates controls, uses broad definitions and turns public advocacy into a risk factor that triggers extraordinary scrutiny for punitive purposes.

In what political context was the law passed?

The bill was passed thanks to the majority held by the ruling Colorado Party. The process moved forward against a backdrop of stigmatisation of CSOs, human rights activists and journalists, and coincided with the work of a congressional committee that framed CSO funding within a narrative centred on money laundering.

The law also reflected the convergence between parts of the ruling coalition and conservative religious networks. Among its main proponents were legislators such as Gustavo Leite and Lizarella Valiente, who have also participated in activities and initiatives linked to evangelical organisations. While this doesn’t prove that these organisations drafted or funded the law, it does highlight an asymmetry in access and scrutiny between groups that influence public policy.

The law treats different groups that influence the same policies very differently. It imposes extensive controls on CSOs but expressly exempts churches and religious groups.

What impact is the new law having?

The impact began even before the first sanctions were imposed. Ever since the Ministry of Economy and Finance launched the registration portal, CSOs have had to devote time, money and staff to complying with the new accounting, administrative and legal requirements. For small organisations or those run by volunteers, this means that a large proportion of their resources is no longer being channelled into activities, assistance, research or support services.

Uncertainty is also a factor. Although sanctions are not yet being applied on a large scale, the law is having a deterrent effect. Donors, organisations and supporters fear the consequences of getting involved or advocating for causes.

The obligation to provide detailed information on beneficiaries and supporters poses privacy risks, particularly in small communities and among vulnerable groups. The safety of these people depends on who has access to the information, for what purpose and with what effective safeguards.

What obstacles do LGBTQI+ organisations face, and how does the new law exacerbate them?

In Paraguay, gender and diversity organisations operate in a context of structural discrimination, characterised by hate speech, exclusion from education and the labour market, barriers to accessing healthcare and difficulties in reporting violence. Added to this is the lack of a comprehensive anti-discrimination law, legal recognition for same-sex couples and accessible administrative procedures for the recognition of gender identity. All this leaves LGBTQI+ people in a particularly vulnerable situation.

Law 7363 exacerbates these difficulties, as it imposes broad and unclear requirements on CSOs that defend these rights. REPAR+’s artistic activities can be regarded as advocacy, culture and support all at once. The vagueness of the law, combined with discretionary powers and the threat of suspension, makes it impossible to predict how these activities will be classified, and could stifle critical voices before any sanction is imposed.

How has civil society mobilised to challenge the law at the Supreme Court?

The response has combined dialogue, international appeals, litigation and technical analysis. Since December, CSOs working on community development, culture, the environment and human rights, as well as rural communities, have filed constitutional challenges against the law and its implementing decree. REPAR+ has joined the effort because we believe freedoms of association and expression are essential for organisations that support LGBTQI+ people, denounce discrimination and engage in public policy.

We hope that the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court will examine these challenges independently and urgently, in the light of the Constitution, the American Convention on Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. A favourable ruling would directly protect the organisations bringing the challenges and establish an important precedent. We don’t seek to be exempt from accountability. We seek to prevent a regulatory process from becoming a form of political surveillance, exposing vulnerable people or serving as punishment for dissent.

What action is needed in and outside Paraguay to reverse these restrictions?

Within Paraguay, the court must rule urgently and prevent irreparable harm while it considers the merits of the case. However, a lasting solution requires Congress and the executive to repeal or comprehensively modify the law, through a pluralistic consultation process. Any regulation should be precise, avoid duplicate registrations and protect beneficiaries, donors, victims and workers. Intrusive requests should be subject to independent scrutiny and sanctions should be limited to what is strictly necessary and proportionate. These criteria should apply equally to anyone who manages public funds or influences policy, including religious organisations.

The international community could continue to monitor the situation at the United Nations, particularly through the Human Rights Council Universal Periodic Review process, and at the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. It can also take action through embassies and cooperation agencies. Donors should offer flexible support to cover accounting, legal, security and technological costs, rather than withdrawing out of fear of the new regime.

Paraguay also needs a comprehensive anti-discrimination law, effective recognition of gender identity and protection for human rights defenders and journalists.

We are not asking for external guardianship or privileges. We are calling for democratic solidarity to preserve a space where people can organise, question and propose ideas. Transparency should strengthen democracy, not expose vulnerable people or turn criticism of those in power into a cause for suspicion.

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

GET IN TOUCH
Instagram
Hugo González/Instagram
Hugo González/LinkedIn

SEE ALSO
Paraguay: arbitrary detention of land rights defenders CIVICUS Monitor 24.Apr.2026
Cutting civil society’s lifeline: the global spread of foreign agents laws CIVICUS Lens | report 19.Oct.2025
Paraguay: ‘The new law’s purpose is to increase government control over civil society’ CIVICUS Lens | Interview with Marta Ferrara and Olga Caballero 25.Oct.2024

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Exiled Nicaraguans hold a national flag in the Church of San Francisco in San José, Costa Rica, at a service held on 19 April 2026 to commemorate the anniversary of protests in 2018. Credit: Ezequiel Becerra/AFP

By Inés M. Pousadela
MONTEVIDEO, Uruguay, Aug 12 2026 (IPS)

On 19 July, the 47th anniversary of the Sandinista revolution that first brought him to power, Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega declared that his country would hold ‘no more elections’ so that the opposition could never again try to ‘seize power’. Just like that, he scrapped a presidential vote that had previously been pushed back to 2027, abandoning even the fiction of democratic legitimacy. The move changes little in practice, since no free vote had been possible for years. But it’s still revealing: a government that controls the army, the courts, the electoral machinery and the police, and will still not risk even a stage-managed ballot, is one that has lost confidence in its people.

Civil society dismantled

The abolition of elections is the political capstone of a longer-term project to eliminate every organised space beyond the ruling family’s control. A constitutional overhaul ratified in January 2025 extended Ortega’s term, elevated his wife, Rosario Murillo, from vice-president to ‘co-president’, and handed the couple control over every branch of the state, with their son, Laureano Ortega Murillo, positioned as monarchical heir apparent. Scrapping elections that had already been emptied of any meaning removes the last formal mechanism through which power in Nicaragua might, however unlikely, have changed hands.

Since 2018, the government has shut down over 5,500 civil society organisations, close to 80 per cent of what existed. Its net has encompassed trade unions, women’s groups, universities, independent media and religious bodies, with the Catholic Church a particular target. The legal profession is the latest victim. In early July, some 2,000 lawyers found their licences to practise revoked overnight, without notice or appeal, effectively leaving many Nicaraguans without legal defence.

The Group of Human Rights Experts on Nicaragua, mandated by the UN Human Rights Council, has concluded that the government has weaponised every arm of the state and its abuses amount to crimes against humanity committed as deliberate policy. It has documented chains of command linking the presidency to local officials, and named 54 officials responsible for the repression.

Repression beyond borders

Persecution has forced over 935,000 people, roughly one in eight Nicaraguans, into exile since mass protests in 2018, which security forces suppressed by killing more than 300 people. But exile offers no safety. A 2025 report by the Group of Human Rights Experts shows the regime runs an extensive transnational intelligence and surveillance network using the army, police, foreign service and informal agents to track critics abroad, monitor their communications and threaten their families back home.

For a growing number, surveillance leads to violence. In June 2025, Roberto Samcam, a retired army major turned prominent critic, was shot dead at his home in Costa Rica by an assassin posing as a delivery driver. He was one of at least four exiled opposition figures killed in Central America since 2022. Many more have survived attempts on their lives.

The regime has also stripped hundreds of critics of their nationality, including 222 political prisoners it expelled to the USA in 2023 and 135 it shipped to Guatemala in 2024, and made changes to the Penal Code to prosecute ‘crimes against the state’ committed abroad.

Aware that international bodies offer a route to accountability, the regime is moving to close it off. Having quit the Organization of American States in 2023, Nicaragua withdrew from the UN Human Rights Council and four other multilateral bodies in 2025. Yet some mechanisms do not need its consent. Two months after the government announced it was quitting, the Human Rights Council renewed the Group of Experts’ mandate for a further two years. An Argentine judge, acting under universal jurisdiction, has issued arrest warrants for Ortega, Murillo and other senior officials. The legal instruments exist, but the will to use them is often missing.

Democratic states have supplied little of that will. The USA does not recognise Ortega’s government, yet in September 2025 the Trump administration terminated Temporary Protected Status for Nicaraguans, asserting that the country was now safe for their return, a claim at odds with UN findings. This left thousands exposed to deportation.

Ortega has meanwhile leaned on autocratic friends, with China now his main source of funding and Russia supplying intelligence and security advice and training.

Long-term pressure needed

Ortega will have watched Venezuela closely. In 2024, Nicolás Maduro allowed the holding of an election he was sure he had won in advance, having stopped the main opposition candidate standing, only to see a little-known substitute become the catalyst for years of pent-up discontent. Scrapping elections spares Ortega that danger, at least in the short term.

Over the long term, pressure for the restoration of democracy will depend on the endurance of Nicaraguan civil society, at home and in exile, and on democratic states being willing to hold the regime to account. Neither can be taken for granted. The movement best able to sustain the fight has been driven abroad, where it also faces persecution, and the government best placed to shelter these exiles is busy sending them back home.

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

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

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

 
CIVICUS discusses India’s Cockroach Janta Party movement with Harshit Singh, a young activist, poet and storyteller who took part in protests in Delhi.

Harshit Singh

What’s the Cockroach Janta Party, and how did it start?

On 15 May, the Chief Justice of India said that young people who couldn’t find a job and turned to media, social media and activism to attack the system were like cockroaches. He corrected himself the following day, saying he had meant only those entering the legal profession with fake degrees, but it was too late. Everybody felt hurt and frustrated.

Abhijeet Dipke, a young Indian, posted a tweet asking what would happen if all the cockroaches came together. Within 24 hours he had set up an Instagram page, a website and a manifesto that said that if you were lazy, unemployed and had time on your hands, you qualified as a cockroach. The name, Cockroach Janta Party, was a parody of the ruling party. The response was enormous. Artists and creators began promoting the platform, and within weeks over 20 million people were following it.

It grew that fast because the frustration was already there. Two weeks before Surya Kant spoke, the question paper for the national medical entrance exam leaked in advance, and the exam was cancelled for over two million students who had spent years preparing. At least 21 students died by suicide; every morning we woke up to news of another death. And this was not an isolated case. Every other day we hear about another exam paper leaking somewhere.

The Cockroach Janta Party gave young people somewhere to channel their frustration with the education system and unemployment. It gave us hope and a chance to demand a better education system, one that isn’t privatised and doesn’t cost so much that only privileged people get a good education.

But education is just the baseline. Beyond it, this is a movement that brings together everyone who has been neglected and not listened to for years, so they can express their frustration and ask for change. What started as satire became a national movement that nobody, not even the person who started it, expected.

Would you call this a Gen Z movement?

It was organised by Gen Z, and most of us in it are, but it’s not only that. I have seen every generation at the protest. People of different castes, gender identities and religions have come together under one umbrella to ask for their rights. At the end of the day, we are all Indians, and every issue this country is going through is our issue.

There is no criterion for joining and no enrolment process. If you think something is wrong, or that your basic rights are not being respected, that is the moment you support the movement, however you can. Come to the protest, talk about it online or in print, and be a voice where you are.

What struck me most is how many people came who didn’t support Abhijeet or disagreed with something a spokesperson had said. Some didn’t even like that we call ourselves cockroaches. They came anyway, because the movement is bigger than any person in it and because after a long time we have a platform where we can speak out loud, with other people standing next to us. That’s why it grew so fast.

What role has social media played?

Social media has played a central role. The movement started online and the vast majority of what it has achieved rests on that. Nobody expected it to come onto the ground and organise protests at this scale.

The reason it mattered this much is that the media here is compromised. If you say anything against the government, mainstream television and print media will not carry it. There was a protest in the heart of the capital for weeks and you wouldn’t find a single headline about it in the newspapers or magazines.

But when you are on the ground with your phone, taking photos and videos, you become your own media. And everyone was using their platforms. It didn’t matter whether someone had 10 followers or 5,000, each person was reaching the audience they had. In the end, mainstream media just reaches a limited number of people, but social media reaches everyone.

The turning point was when artists and creators started speaking. I hesitated at first. My livelihood is social media and ticket revenue, so I doubted what would happen to my future if I spoke against the government. I feared my accounts would be taken down. But I couldn’t deny what was happening, so I spoke out, and many other artists did too.

How has the government responded?

The government has responded very negatively. People who question the government, protest against it or ask for their rights get labelled as anti-national or terrorists. There’s no second thought about it. When I was a child, those were heavy words. Watching this government make them ordinary and using them against us was frightening.

For seven weeks we were at Jantar Mantar, the designated protest site in central Delhi. The Prime Minister’s Office, the President’s house and every ministry are within a five-kilometre radius. Still, not official came to meet us. What they did instead was try to dilute the protest by dividing us with anything they could find. They mocked queer people and spread hatred between Hindus and Muslims, but the unity held and we stood together.

On 20 July, we marched from Jantar Mantar to parliament. Delhi hadn’t seen a peaceful protest this massive in about 15 years. Thousands of people, including children, teenagers and grandparents, were on the streets asking for their basic rights. We were carrying flowers, banners and posters, and chanting slogans.

But the security forces met us with repression and violence. They used pellet guns, teargas and batons against anyone, even if they were just standing nearby. There’s a girl who’s still in intensive care on a ventilator.

The way the police handled the protests was illegal and unconstitutional. At that moment a lot of people in India realised something was badly wrong, and support for our movement grew massively across the country. Cities, districts and small towns started protests in solidarity. That is when the government understood it had to listen.

What has the movement achieved?

Our non-negotiable demand was the resignation of Dharmendra Pradhan and action against everyone involved in the scam. Pradhan stepped down, and we are glad he did, but it shouldn’t have taken this long or this much violence. He even framed it as a way to stop the protests and prevent terrorist activity, not as an admission that anything had gone wrong. Accountability is still missing.

Our other two demands are still unmet. We asked for compensation of 10 million rupees (approx. US$115,000) for every family that lost a child to suicide. Those families haven’t received anything, not even an apology.

We also asked that nobody who took part in the protests face legal action. Instead, the police have spent the past days tracing protesters and opening cases against them. There’s a lot of rage about it, and Abhijeet and others have said we may have to protest again.

What support does the movement need now?

What we most need is for people to stop being afraid. Protesting here is almost a taboo, because people expect repercussions and stay away, which makes organising anything at all difficult.

That fear is not irrational. This government controls the security forces, the Central Bureau of Investigation and the Enforcement Directorate, and it can do whatever it wants with them, as we saw on the streets. The courts will not stop it either, because the judiciary is compromised in the same way the media is.

But if something is wrong, it is fine to ask the government why. They are here to serve us. All we are asking for is to be able to protest peacefully in what is supposed to be the world’s largest democracy.

We need young people in this country to keep showing up and artists to stop being silent, because if the mainstream media will not speak out, art must become the mode of resistance. Support from abroad matters too. When people elsewhere talk about our movement, it creates pressure on the government. And we must hold on to what we know – our rights and our intentions – because diluting the agenda is what the government will try next.

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.

India has recently been added to the CIVICUS Monitor Watchlist, which identifies countries where a severe deterioration in the quality of civic space is taking place.

GET IN TOUCH
Instagram

SEE ALSO
India added to human rights watchlist as repression intensifies in Modi’s third term CIVICUS Monitor 29.Jul.2026
Gen Z protests: new resistance rises CIVICUS | 2026 State of Civil Society Report
India: ‘When civil society is constrained, it cannot challenge power or amplify excluded voices’ CIVICUS Lens | Interview with Devanshi Vaid and Smarinita Shetty 11.Dec.2025

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Burkina Faso’s junta leader Captain Ibrahim Traoré attends a meeting with Russian president Vladimir Putin in Moscow on 10 May 2025. Credit: Angelos Tzortzinis/AFP

By Andrew Firmin
LONDON, Aug 7 2026 (IPS)

Burkina Faso’s charismatic young military leader, army captain Ibrahim Traoré, has stopped pretending. In April, he declared that people should ‘forget about the question of democracy’ because ‘democracy isn’t for us’. When Traoré seized power in September 2022, ousting a leader who’d staged a coup earlier that year, he promised elections by June 2024. The junta broke that pledge, pushing any transition back to 2029. Now Traoré has confirmed he has no intention of restoring democracy. Instead, Burkina Faso’s military junta is tightening its repression, while working with neighbouring states to internationalise its dangerously undemocratic model.

Crackdown intensifies

Repression has unfolded in a context of jihadist insurgency. Frustration with the democratically elected government’s security failures helped fuel the conditions that led to military rule, but the army hasn’t turned things around. The insurgency has grown, and civilians are paying the price. All sides are accused of crimes against humanity and war crimes, and since the coup, there’s evidence that Burkina Faso’s armed forces and allied militias have increasingly targeted civilians, particularly members of the Fulani ethnic group.

A military seen to be failing against the insurgency and killing civilians would lose any claims to legitimacy. That makes the junta determined to control the narrative, silence dissent and crush any perceived challenge to its power.

Traoré backs his anti-democratic rhetoric with actions. In January, the government dissolved all political parties, claiming they sowed division and weakened the social fabric. The junta is also targeting civil society organisations (CSOs). In recent months, authorities have suspended over a thousand organisations. In April, the government dissolved 118 CSOs, citing non-compliance with a July 2025 law that imposed strict and onerous registration, compliance and reporting requirements. The law supposedly gave CSOs a year to comply, but the government dissolved them before the deadline expired. It targeted human rights organisations such as the African Meeting for the Defence of Human Rights, the Burkinabè Coalition for Women’s Rights and Christian Action for the Abolition of Torture.

Religious associations and student groups have fared little better. Association As Salam and the Coordination of Young Muslims of Burkina have no explicit human rights focus, but authorities have suspended both for alleged public disorder and activities said to fall outside their stated purpose. In May, the government suspended the General Student Union of Burkina Faso, the country’s biggest student group, after it issued a statement criticising the government’s security record, which the government claimed glorified terrorism.

Authorities have suspended several media outlets, typically over their reporting on the security situation. In May, the state media regulator indefinitely suspended French TV channel TV5 Monde, accusing it of siding with terrorist groups.

Anybody who speaks out risks arrest, detention, enforced disappearance, forced conscription into the armed forces and torture. Burkina Faso’s LGBTQI+ people are particularly exposed, since in 2025 the junta criminalised same-sex relations, with jail sentences of up to five years. The government has also granted itself the power to strip citizenship from anyone deemed to be acting against the national interest. Last December, repression took an even more ominous turn when the junta announced its intention to reinstate the death penalty.

Due to these actions, Burkina Faso has recently been added to the CIVICUS Monitor Watchlist, which identifies countries where a severe deterioration in the quality of civic space is taking place.

Repressive alliance

Burkina Faso isn’t working alone. Under Traoré, it has forged close relations with two neighbouring military regimes, Mali and Niger. Together, they’re promoting a model that rejects democracy and international scrutiny. In January 2025, they completed their joint withdrawal from the key regional organisation, the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), a year after forming their rival Alliance of Sahel States. The move was clearly a response to ECOWAS pressure to restore civilian rule.

The three states have now formally begun the process to leave the International Criminal Court (ICC). They’ve denounced the court as a ‘tool of neocolonial oppression’ and promised to set up an alternative, although any body they create is unlikely to retain the ICC’s power to issue arrest warrants against sitting heads of state and other senior figures. For survivors of human rights atrocities, withdrawal from the ICC and the ECOWAS Community Court of Justice removes vital potential routes to justice.

In February, Burkina Faso suspended the UN Human Rights Office, which had operated in the country since 2019, in retaliation for a statement by UN human rights chief Volker Türk urging the junta to reverse its ban on political parties and open up civic space. The UN has now concluded it has no choice but to close its office.

These moves shield military leaders and security forces from external accountability. They’re part of a wider realignment that has seen Burkina Faso and its allies turn away from former colonial power France and other democratic states and towards Russia, a partner with no interest in human rights. Burkina Faso’s relations with Russia have extended beyond military cooperation to stronger economic ties. Last year the two countries signed a gold-mining deal.

Even as he rejects international scrutiny, Traoré has cultivated a global following. Through adept use of social media and a steady stream of disinformation, he casts himself as a pan-African leader in the mould of liberation-era icons such as Thomas Sankara, Burkina Faso’s revolutionary former president. His message taps into real anger about colonialism and the power imbalances in relations with western states.

But the people whose rights he tramples aren’t westerners. The civilians being slaughtered by the army and the activists and journalists being silenced are Burkinabe people. There’s nothing un-African about democratic freedoms, and nothing pan-African about a leader who denies them. African democracies have the most to lose if Traoré’s model spreads, and are the most able to challenge it. They should refuse to normalise his narrative and press him to restore fundamental freedoms, rebuild a path to democratic rule and recognise the value of international accountability.

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

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

 
CIVICUS speaks about China’s recently implemented Ethnic Unity Law with Gulchehra Hoja, a correspondent for Reporters Without Borders and a Uyghur activist and journalist known for her reporting on human rights abuses against Uyghur people in China.

Gulchehra Hoja

What does the new Ethnic Unity Law state?

This new law means there is one acceptable way to be Chinese and requires every part of society, not just the state, to work towards it. Culture, faith and language become things to be managed rather than rights to be protected.

But none of this is new. The law formalises practices that are already in place and turns repression into official state policy. For years the Chinese government has closed Uyghur-language schools, demolished mosques, imprisoned intellectuals, separated children from their families and sent more than a million Uyghurs and other Turkic peoples into detention camps. Ordinary expressions of Uyghur identity can attract suspicion.

Every government wants security and stability. The question is how those goals are pursued and who ends up defined as a threat. Under this law the answer is anyone whose identity does not fit. The Ethnic Unity Law strengthens Communist Party authority, not minority rights. It tells minorities that loyalty to the Communist Party matters more than their identity and that even the most ordinary parts of life are subject to state control.

Doesn’t China’s constitution protect minority languages and autonomy?

On paper, Article 4 guarantees all ethnic groups the right to use their own languages and preserve their cultures. But there is an enormous gap between what the law says and what happens.

I come from the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region. For Beijing, it is a strategic asset that connects China to Central Asia, holds vast natural resources and plays a central role in the country’s long-term economic and security ambitions. But for Uyghurs, it’s our home. It is where generations of our people have lived and built their lives.

The region is officially described as autonomous, but autonomy must include genuine local political participation, real cultural protection and the right to use and teach our language freely. Where those are missing, autonomy exists in name only.

Which communities does the law reach, and how is it enforced?

Uyghurs are the first victims, but we are certainly not the only ones. The law reaches Hong Kong activists, religious communities, Southern Mongolians and Tibetans. It can even be applied to Chinese citizens whose beliefs or identities just don’t fit the Communist Party’s vision. And because it applies beyond China’s territory, it reaches all of them wherever they live.

Paramilitary institutions, police, security agencies and universities work together, so every part of society is drawn into monitoring and reshaping people’s identities. Students from China’s National Security College, for example, were sent to East Turkistan to study governance centres, neighbourhood grid management, police stations and the Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps, the state-owned paramilitary body that runs its own cities, courts, police and prisons across the region. This was not an academic visit. It was training in how to put a population under surveillance.

What are the risks of speaking out?

I know them personally. In authoritarian systems, telling the truth can be treated as a crime. I was branded a terrorist not because I committed violence but because I practised journalism and dared to speak out. And it was not only me who paid for it. After I reported on what was happening in East Turkistan, 25 members of my family were detained.

I am not alone in this. The Chinese government fears independent reporting, and that is why it works so hard to control information. Foreign journalists have been expelled, local journalists imprisoned and many Uyghur journalists working for international media have seen relatives disappeared, imprisoned or sent to detention camps simply for continuing to report.

The new law gives Beijing further justification to present peaceful advocacy as a threat to national unity. It also sends a message to Uyghurs living in Canada, Europe, Latin America, Turkey and the USA: we are still watching you. That is what transnational repression means.

What should the international community do?

Governments should not judge this law by its title but by its consequences. They should continue documenting human rights abuses, expose China’s efforts to intimidate critics abroad, sanction the officials responsible for these policies and strengthen protections for Uyghur journalists and refugees. We’ll keep documenting these stories even when access is restricted, but we can’t do it alone.

This is not only about Uyghurs. It is about whether a government can erase a people’s culture, history, language and religion and call it unity. That question should concern everyone.

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

GET IN TOUCH
Website
Facebook
LinkedIn
Twitter
YouTube
Gulchehra Hoja/LinkedIn

SEE ALSO
Transnational repression: ‘China feels emboldened to globalise its political red lines’ CIVICUS Lens | Interview with Barbora Bukovská 19.May.2026
China: ‘The state is using generative AI to engineer reality through informational gaslighting’ CIVICUS Lens | Interview with Fergus Ryan 12.Mar.2026
The long reach of authoritarianism CIVICUS Lens 20.Mar.2024

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Anti-FGM activists protests outside the National Assembly in Banjul, The Gambia, on 18 March 2024, as lawmakers discuss a bill seeking to lift the ban on FGM. Credit: by Muhamadou Bittaye/AFP

By Inés M. Pousadela
MONTEVIDEO, Uruguay, Aug 3 2026 (IPS)

Last August, a one-month-old girl in The Gambia bled to death after being subjected to female genital mutilation (FGM), a practice that had been illegal in the country since 2015. FGM is a human rights violation, whatever the appeals to faith or tradition made in its defence, but now the Gambian Supreme Court is being asked to strike the country’s ban down. This is the second attempt in two years to make FGM legal again.

Civil society stopped it the first time. When a repeal bill reached the National Assembly in 2024, the Network Against Gender-Based Violence brought survivors to testify, lobbied legislators, ran radio programmes and obtained a ruling from Cairo’s Al-Azhar University saying that FGM is not required under Islam. The bill fell in July 2024.

The ongoing fight in The Gambia is a measure of how fragile advances in the recognition of rights are. FGM is in retreat across most of the countries where it is practised, the result of decades of campaigning by survivors and community organisations. But holding that ground is becoming harder, as the money supporting those campaigns dries up and a resurgent anti-rights movement works to recast FGM as a traditional practice under foreign attack.

A practice in retreat

Over 230 million girls and women alive today have undergone FGM, with an additional four million cut every year. But the direction of travel has changed. A 2024 UNICEF report found that half of the decline in prevalence over the past 30 years has come in the last decade, with rates among adolescent girls halved or cut by 30-plus percentage points in countries including Ethiopia, Kenya and Sierra Leone. Attitudes have shifted too. Around 400 million people in practising countries, two-thirds of the population, now say they want FGM to end.

That change has a clear source. The Joint Programme run by UNICEF and the UN Population Fund found that the sharpest reductions come where communities are supported to deliberate and then commit, publicly and collectively, to abandoning the practice. The UN channels funding and provides coordination, but the dialogues, declarations and door-to-door persuasion are the work of community activists, national organisations and survivor networks. Thanks to these civil society efforts, in 2025 alone, over 7.5 million people took part in community dialogues and over 190,000 religious leaders and community influencers publicly denounced FGM.

The tools that work

Where campaigners have targeted the religious justifications that sustain FGM, results have followed. In 2025, Islamic scholars in Djibouti, Eritrea and Somalia issued a joint ruling saying that nothing in the faith requires FGM. Litigation has proved another powerful tool. In July 2025, the Court of Justice of the Economic Community of West African States found Sierra Leone in breach of its international obligations for failing to criminalise FGM, and said that, when intentionally inflicted, the practice meets the threshold of torture. In India, the Supreme Court has begun hearing whether cutting among the Dawoodi Bohra community should lose constitutional protection as an essential religious practice. And this June, Colombia became the first country in Latin America to ban FGM, driven by Emberá Indigenous women campaigning against a practice carried out in their own community.

Prohibition is now the norm rather than the exception, with Djibouti and Guinea writing bans into their constitutions in 2025. But laws alone don’t necessarily change what happens on the ground, and enforcement remains thin. Arrests and prosecutions rose sharply in 2025, yet there were still only 711 FGM court cases all year. In The Gambia, the fine imposed on the country’s first convicted cutters was paid by a prominent imam, an act that helped galvanise the campaign seeking to repeal the ban.

The movement’s defunding

The tactics that drove three decades of progress are now being starved of funding, with budget cuts falling hardest on the survivor-led and grassroots groups that are most effective but always face the toughest struggles for support. Funding for the Joint Programme fell from US$29.6 million in 2024 to US$16.3 million in 2025. The dismantling of USAID removed the largest single source of civil society funding worldwide, and total US foreign aid halved in a year. The UK, once the biggest funder of FGM prevention, is winding down its flagship programme with no replacement, so it can spend more on weapons.

The economics make no sense, because every dollar invested in prevention brings a tenfold return. The Joint Programme estimates that treating the health consequences of FGM currently costs US$1.4 billion a year. Politics, though, is playing a big part. In global north countries, political shifts are driving the withdrawal of aid, and far-right parties invoke FGM to stigmatise migrant communities while also opposing the gender justice policies that would make a difference. In practising countries, prohibition is increasingly recast as a foreign imposition on culture and faith. What unites these arguments is a shared sleight of hand that treats FGM as a question of cultural identity rather than a violation of fundamental human rights.

Elimination by 2030, the target that states set when they agreed the Sustainable Development Goals in 2015, is already out of reach. But the evidence on what works is not in dispute, and it points towards communities and grassroots movements. The question is whether governments that claim to value human rights will keep supporting those delivering progress, or let a generation of girls pay the price of retreat.

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

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

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Pride Parade participants march on the Elisabeth bridge in Budapest, Hungary on 27 June 2026. Credit: Attila Kisbenedek/AFP

By Inés M. Pousadela
MONTEVIDEO, Uruguay, Jul 15 2026 (IPS)

On the morning of 28 June, riot police sealed off Taksim Square with iron barriers and enforced bans on all weekend gatherings in Istanbul. Marchers pressed ahead anyway, re-emerging from side streets each time police dispersed them. By the end of the day police had detained at least 50 people, including a journalist. It was Istanbul Pride’s 24th edition, and the 12th year running that the authorities banned it outright.

Homosexuality is not illegal in Turkey, so the state cannot prosecute people for who they are. Instead, it punishes them for making themselves visible. Authorities ban marches on ‘public morality’ grounds, block access to the social media accounts of LGBTQI+ organisations and put activists on trial for ‘obscenity’.

The pattern repeats in country after country. For a movement that spent decades making progress in winning recognition of rights, this Pride season tells a story of regression. A concerted backlash is clawing back territory once claimed, and Pride has again become a protest.

Much of the current wave of regression is a direct response to the gains LGBTQI+ movements made over previous decades. Anti-discrimination laws, recognition of equal marriage rights and growing public visibility have given opponents a clear target to mobilise against, and governments under economic or political pressure have found a convenient scapegoat in the LGBTQI+ community.

Authoritarian and populist leaders, facing discontent over corruption, inflation and unemployment, redirect public anger towards a minority that can be attacked without political cost, while conservative religious institutions find in opposition to LGBTQI+ rights, and particularly trans rights, a rallying cause that restores their claim to define society’s moral order. The result is a mutually reinforcing alliance between political power and religious conservatism, dressed up as the defence of children, the family and national identity.

Existence criminalised

A growing number of states are going further, criminalising not only LGBTQI+ people’s visibility but their very existence. Four West African states have criminalised consensual same-sex relations in the past two years, framing their move as a defence of national sovereignty against western influence. Mali’s military government criminalised homosexuality in December 2024 and Burkina Faso’s junta followed in September 2025. Niger’s new penal code, adopted last month, imposes punishment of up to 20 years in prison. Within weeks, media reported at least 40 arrests, the suspension of HIV prevention services and people fleeing the country.

Electoral democracies aren’t immune. In Senegal, parliament doubled the maximum sentence for ‘unnatural acts’ to 10 years in March, and over 300 ‘suspected homosexuals’ have reportedly been arrested in the past few months. Ghana’s parliament passed a bill imposing jail sentences on anyone who identifies as LGBTQI+ and requiring people to report prohibited activities to the authorities. President John Mahama has yet to sign it into law, but the debate about the bill has already fuelled a rise in blackmail, evictions and workplace discrimination.

The model is Uganda’s 2023 Anti-Homosexuality Act, which includes the death penalty for ‘aggravated homosexuality’ and punishes the vaguely defined crime of ‘promoting’ homosexuality with up to 20 years in prison.

All these laws, marketed as a rejection of foreign interference and imported values, have been promoted with foreign money. US-based conservative groups such as the American Center for Law and Justice and Family Watch International have played a key role in funding anti-rights advocacy. Days after passing its bill, Ghana’s parliament hosted the African Inter-Parliamentary Conference on Family Values and Sovereignty, a platform with documented ties to those groups that has promoted Uganda’s law as a template for the continent.

Consensus in retreat

US anti-rights groups have their president’s ear. Since returning to office, Donald Trump has signed a series of executive orders rolling back federal protections, particularly targeting transgender people. Private companies heard the message. Major events including NYC Pride and San Francisco Pride lost sponsors in 2025, and Tampa Pride had to cancel its 2026 parade.

For years, activist groups such as New York’s Reclaim Pride Coalition accused corporations of pinkwashing, that is, turning Pride into a corporate vehicle without advancing demands for rights. Many sponsors are now gone, but for the wrong reasons. Whatever its motives, sponsorship functioned as a seal of approval from mainstream institutions. Money withdrawn out of political fear takes with it more than event budgets; it erodes a social consensus that took decades to build.

Marching for those who can’t

In this context, the year’s biggest marches have become acts of political defiance. A million people marched in São Paulo under the theme ‘The street summons, the ballot box confirms’, ahead of Brazil’s October general election. In Bangkok, an all-time record half a million people marched a year after Thailand’s marriage equality law took effect, a testament to what legal recognition can do for a community’s visibility.

On 27 June, tens of thousands joined the 31st Budapest Pride, the first held since voters removed the right-wing populist government that repeatedly banned it. Organisers are treating this as a starting point, pressing the new government with a list of 14 demands that begins with repealing a 2021 ‘anti-LGBT propaganda’ law the European Union’s top court has ruled incompatible with equality and human dignity. Hungary shows that change is possible after all.

In places like Indonesia, Iraq, Niger and Uganda, among many more, there’s no Pride march to ban, because holding one is unthinkable. Even private organising now risks prosecution. In those places, people are looking outward, hoping that a crowd marching freely somewhere else will march for them too. That’s the duty of Pride season for those still free to gather: to mobilise both for themselves and for the many being forced to hide who they are.

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

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

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Philippines was the most advanced Southeast Asian country with the highest per capita GDP until about the early 1960s. Its per capita GDP in purchasing power parity terms were about the same as South Korea’s and above that of Thailand in the early 1970s.The Nobel Laureate economist, Gunnar Myrdal, did not have much hope for “disease infested” Indonesia when in 1968 he published his famous Asian Drama: An Enquiry Into the Poverty of Nations. But Indonesia surged ahead since the late 1960s with growth acceleration exceeding that of Philippines; thus, eventually overtaking Philippines in GDP per capita in the mid-1980s. What factors separated Indonesia from Philippines?

Elite Stake

It has been the elite stake in the country that played the critical role. The Indonesian elite put their trust in the country, whereas the Filipino elite began to think that their future was in the United States (US). Incidentally, this coincided with President Ferdinand Marcos’ turning into a despot by imposing martial law in 1972 and embracing a policy of “constitutional authoritarianism”.

Anis Chowdhury

It does not mean that IFFs do not occur in Indonesia. In recent years, IFFs have become a major concern for Indonesia; however, there the main actors are multinational corporations, especially in the mining sector. The mining sector in Indonesia accounted for 10.5% of total of IFFs out of Indonesia.

The difference is in the scale and actors.

Good governance myth

Poor governance, especially corruption, is seen as a critical barrier to development. However, the Philippines and Indonesia tale casts doubt on the “good governance” thesis.

Indonesia ranks 109th out of 180 countries in the Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI), while Philippines ranks 120th. Although Philippines is placed at a lower place than Indonesia, corruption is endemic in both countries and the scale is not much different.

However, the difference is where the ill-gotten money is being invested. Without condoning corruption, the tale of these two countries implies that if the ill-gotten money is invested domestically instead of siphoned-off, the country will experience a better development outcome. One can call this “patriotic” corruption as a means of primitive capital accumulation. Where the corrupt money is siphoned-off, corruption is “predatory” analogous to colonial plundering.

Bangladesh is a glaring example of predatory corruption. A 2011 UNDP report ranked Bangladesh no 1 among least developed countries in IFFs. Between 1990 and 2008 the cumulative illicit outflow of funds from Bangladesh was estimated at US$34.8 billion. An estimated US$234 billion was plundered from Bangladesh during Sheikh Hasina’s 15-year autocratic reign.

Authoritarianism debunked

The East Asian development success created a perception, codified in the “Lee hypothesis”, that authoritarian regimes deliver better development outcomes than democracies. Sheikh Hasina, like many other despots, used this argument to consolidate her autocratic rule by brutal suppression of human and democratic rights.

As highlighted earlier, in the case of Indonesia, the elite displayed trust in the country, while in the case of Philippines and Bangladesh, the elite plundered to siphon-off with the aid of repressive kleptocratic regimes.

At the end, however, all three autocratic regimes collapsed; but rebuilding the trust and elite stake in the country remains a challenge in plundered countries like Philippines and Bangladesh.

Anna Karenina principle

Leo Tolstoy in his 1877 novel, Anna Karenina, laid down the Anna Karenina principle: “All happy families are alike; each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way”. The Anna Karenina principle implies that a deficiency in any one of several critical factors dooms a complex endeavour to failure even if all other essential factors are present. In technical jargons, they constitute the “sufficient” condition for the “necessary condition” to work.

Both Indonesia and Philippines share many common factors – they are both archipelago consisting of thousands of small islands dispersed over vast areas of the South China Sea like a garland. They are ethnically diverse; while Indonesia is a Muslim majority country, Catholics dominate in Philippines. Both faiths are regarded as un-worldly, focusing more on the hereafter compared with the Protestant ethics, which is more conducive for capitalism to flourish. Both countries also experienced ethnic separatist armed conflicts.

Both Indonesia and Philippines had pro-US regimes, and the two countries witnessed repressive autocratic rules lasting for decades. Both pro-US regimes also received large US aid and access to the US market as well as foreign direct investment.

Yet their development experiences have differed.

The missing factor is elite stake, the glue to hold all other essential conducive factors together.

Anis Chowdhury, Emeritus Professor, Western Sydney University (Australia). He held senior UN positions in Bangkok and New York and served as Special Assistant to the Chief Advisor for Finance (with the status and rank of State Minister) in the Professor Yunus-led Interim Government. Anis has written extensively on East and Southeast Asian economies, including The Newly Industrialising Economies of East Asia (Routledge) and The Political Economy of East Asia (Oxford University Press). E-mail: anis.z.chowdhury@gmail.com; a.chowdhury@westernsydney.edu.au

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

A UN Peacebuilding Week Event held in Egypt’s Permanent Mission to the United Nations, New York. Credit: Maximilian Malawista

By Maximilian Malawista
UNITED NATIONS, Jun 30 2026 (IPS)

As the United Nations held its first-ever Peacebuilding Week (June 22-26), UN officials and developmental partners gathered at Egypt’s Permanent Mission on June 23 to hold a dialogue on the main question that emerged from the 2025 Peacebuilding Architecture Review (PBAR): “How can global commitments to peacebuilding translate into tangible results on the ground?”

This event, hosted by Egypt at the sidelines of Peacebuilding Week, titled “Strengthening National Peace Infrastructures in Africa: Lessons Learned and the Way Forward,” brought together representatives from African governments and regional organizations, as well as members of the UN system, to discuss how nationally-owned institutions can mitigate and prevent conflict, manage effects and sustain peace long after such situations have ended.

To open the event, Egypt’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Ihab Moustafa Awad Moustafa, emphasized that the 2025 PBAR negotiations repeatedly asserted a fundamental concern: ensuring that policy discussions in New York produce measurable impact on the ground, whether in Africa or in any other peacekeeping sites.

“One of the clearest answers that emerged during those discussions was the need to strengthen national capacities and institutions,” Moustafa said. “We are serious about peacebuilding, sustaining peace, and primarily prevention. We must invest in national peace infrastructure.”

The PBAR, which was adopted in November of 2025, reaffirmed that nationally led and nationally owned endeavors remain at the core of sustainable peace. The PBAR actively calls on Member States, regional organizations, development partners, international financial institutions, and the UN system to strengthen the institutions capable of preventing conflict, fostering social cohesion, and managing risk.

Throughout the discussion, speakers agreed that contemporary conflicts are rooted in security threats but also pointed to institutional fragility, governance deficits, and declining trust of public institutions between citizens as an additional threat.

Brian James Williams, Chief of the Peacebuilding Fund at the Peacebuilding and Peace Support Office (PBPSO), explained that the review provides a clear mandate for the international community to follow nationally identified priorities.

“Prevention and sustaining peace need stronger national capacities, stronger institutions and better alignment of international support behind those national priorities,” Williams said.

Williams detailed the UN Peacebuilding Fund’s increasingly important role in helping governments operationalize existing national mechanisms, rather than creating new parallel structures. Williams cited examples such as support for peace and reconciliation committees in Chad and local peacebuilding mechanisms in the Central African Republic.

“These committees bring together administrative authorities, traditional and religious leaders, women, young, and marginalized groups,” Williams said, relaying the efforts to connect national peace architectures with local institutions and provincial actors.

Participants of the dialogue repeatedly emphasized that national ownership must extend beyond central governments. Effective peace infrastructures require civil society organizations; participation of local authorities, women, youth, religious leaders, and representatives of the community; and capability of identifying tensions or risks before they can escalate into violence.

Permanent Representative of Nigeria to the United Nations, Ibrahim F. Jimoh, highlighted his country’s model to strengthen peacebuilding through institutions such as the Institute for Peace and Conflict Resolution and through reintegration, demobilization, disarmament, and reconciliation programs tailored to specific local conditions.

“Such infrastructures provide the framework through which countries can anticipate risks, address grievances, and support recovery,” Jimoh said. “Their effectiveness depends on inclusive participation, institutional resilience, and strong national ownership.”

Sierra Leone, Ghana, Côte d’Ivoire, and The Gambia also shared examples where local mediation structures, national peace councils, reconciliation commissions, and traditional institutions of justice have contributed to conflict prevention and social cohesion.

Jacqueline Seck, Chief of Staff, Office of the Under-Secretary-General for Political and Peacebuilding Affairs (DPPA), pointed to Ghana’s Peace Council as an example of nationally owned institutions providing trusted platforms to have dialogue, mediation, and electoral conflict prevention. Similarly, in The Gambia and Sierra Leone, the role of dedicated peace institutions in helping support post-conflict reconciliation and manage political tensions was discussed.

Among the major challenges, financing emerged as a recurring topic throughout the duration of the dialogue. While the catalytic role of the Peacebuilding Fund was praised by the speakers, many emphasized that sustained peace ultimately requires a long-term political commitment to peace as well as continuous domestic investment.

Williams warned that developing institutions often takes a lot of time and is a gradual process.

“Institutions take time to develop,” he said. “Results often require support at a certain scale, across the country, and across different parts of an institution to make meaningful impact.”

Throughout the discussion, participants pointed to a broader shift in peacebuilding strategy, from responding to crises after violence has already erupted to investing in preventative institutions designed to address risks before conflict happens.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

 
CIVICUS discusses Ghana’s anti-LGBTQI+ law with Leila Lariba, Executive Director of One Love Sisters Ghana, a community-driven organisation that advances human rights, social inclusion and wellbeing for Muslim LGBTQI+ people in Ghana.

On 29 May, Ghana’s parliament approved the Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill, which imposes prison terms of up to three years for people who identify as LGBTQI+ and three to five years for anyone deemed to promote, sponsor or support LGBTQI+ activities. With it, Ghana joins a growing group of West African states, including Burkina Faso, Mali, Niger and Senegal, that have recently passed anti-LGBTQI+ laws.

What does the new bill do, and how different is it from the version parliament approved in 2024?

Parliament approved the new anti-LGBTQI+ bill on 29 May and it now awaits President John Dramani Mahama’s signature. The bill criminalises LGBTQI+ people and anyone perceived to support, advocate for or provide services to them. It reaches far beyond identity and relationships into the freedoms of association, education, expression, healthcare and human rights advocacy. I have worked directly with LGBTQI+ communities across Ghana for years and I see this not as a legal document but as a tool that legitimises discrimination.

The version parliament approved in 2024, which former president Nana Akufo-Addo left office without signing, was already one of the continent’s most restrictive. The new text keeps most of its harmful provisions. It comes at a moment when LGBTQI+ people already face heightened fear, insecurity and stigma, and it makes simply existing, seeking support or speaking about human rights a potential crime.

Why is the bill being pushed now, and who’s behind it?

The bill is being pushed by anti-rights groups that have increasingly turned LGBTQI+ people into a political target. As many Ghanaians struggle with economic hardship, unemployment and governance concerns, public attention is being redirected towards a small and already excluded community.

Behind it stands a coalition of political figures, conservative religious groups and traditional leaders who frame LGBTQI+ rights as a threat to culture and family values. This narrative ignores Ghana’s long history of diversity and the fact that LGBTQI+ people belong to every family, community and faith group in the country and the world.

Do you expect President Dramani to sign the bill, and what would the consequences be?

It’s uncertain whether President Dramani will sign. But the damage is already done. The prolonged public debate has fuelled fear, encouraged discrimination and left many people feeling less safe. Even before it becomes law, the bill has emboldened hostility.

At One Love Sisters Ghana, we have documented rising reports of blackmail, evictions, family rejection, mental health crises, online harassment and workplace discrimination. People are now afraid to seek healthcare, legal help and psychosocial support in case they are exposed or targeted. When fear becomes institutionalised, people stop seeking help precisely when they need it most.

The law would threaten fundamental rights and deepen the stigma, isolation and vulnerability of people who already face daily barriers. As a queer Muslim activist, I know what it means to navigate many layers of exclusion. Many LGBTQI+ people are balancing identity, faith, family and safety. This law would make that even harder.

The impact would reach beyond individual people. Community organisations, healthcare providers, human rights defenders and support networks would also face risk, making it harder for vulnerable people to reach essential services and protection.

How are LGBTQI+ groups, including your organisation, responding?

Ghana’s LGBTQI+ communities are remarkably resilient. Across the country, people are supporting one another, sharing information, strengthening their safety and keeping community ties alive.

At One Love Sisters Ghana, we focus on community care, protection and wellbeing. We have tightened safety and security measures, expanded psychosocial support, documented rights violations and kept referring people in crisis to the help they need.

We work closely with activists, community leaders, health professionals, lawyers and regional partners to track developments and keep people informed and supported. Through our national support systems, we keep hearing from people worried about their safety, livelihoods and future.

We also hold on to hope. Our communities have survived hard times before, and we keep building solidarity, caring for one another and advocating for dignity and human rights.

What further restrictions could follow, and what support do you need to prevent them?

Our greatest fear is that this law lays the groundwork for broader restrictions on civil society, free expression and human rights work. Organisations could face tighter scrutiny, activists greater risk and excluded groups even harder access to services.

To prevent further harm, we need sustained support from national, regional and international allies for community safety initiatives, emergency response, legal assistance, mental health services and the protection of human rights defenders.

International solidarity should be led by local communities and grounded in human rights. Allies should amplify local voices, back grassroots organisations and keep advocating for fundamental freedoms.

This is bigger than LGBTQI+ rights. It’s about the kind of society we want to be. Respect for human rights can’t be selective. When the rights of one group are restricted, it creates a precedent that can affect everyone.

As a queer Muslim feminist and human rights defender, I believe that dignity, freedom and safety belong to all people. The conversations happening today will shape the future of our democracy. I hope Ghana chooses compassion over fear, inclusion over exclusion and human dignity over discrimination.

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

GET IN TOUCH
Website
Facebook
Instagram
LinkedIn
Twitter

SEE ALSO
Gender rights: rollback and resistance CIVICUS | State of Civil Society Report 2026
Senegal: ‘The new law criminalises not only LGBTQI+ people but also anyone offering support’ CIVICUS Lens | Anonymous interview 21.May.2026
Ghana: ‘The anti-LGBTQI+ law enshrines prejudice and discrimination and perpetuates inequalities’ CIVICUS Lens | Interview with Solomon Atsuvia | 01.May.2024

Credit: Phil Nijhuis/ANP via AFP

By Andrew Firmin
LONDON, Apr 27 2026 (IPS)

Yasmin Ullah, from Myanmar’s persecuted Rohingya minority, is determined to see justice. On 13 April, she filed a complaint alleging genocide against Myanmar’s president, Min Aung Hlaing, to Indonesia’s Attorney General’s Office. Min Aung Hlaing led the 2021 coup that ousted a democratically elected government and this month was named president following a sham election held amid intense repression, rubber stamping the army’s continuing grip on power. However secure he appears in his position, Yasmin Ullah’s legal action offers hope his impunity may not be guaranteed.

The complaint accuses Min Aung Hlaing of genocide against Rohingya people, a predominantly Muslim ethnic group denied citizenship despite being long established in Myanmar. He’s accused of being responsible for the burning of Rohingya villages, forced evictions, killings and mass rape in a 2017 military operation, during which around 24,000 Rohingya people were killed and over 700,000 forced to flee. The UN’s fact-finding mission and its Independent Investigative Mechanism for Myanmar have extensively documented atrocities. Civil society has played a key role in gathering testimonies from survivors and preserving evidence.

The case was made possible by changes to Indonesia’s criminal code that came into effect in January. While civil society has raised concerns about revisions to other parts of the code that restrict Indonesian people’s ability to speak out and protest, this particular change stands out as a positive development, enabling people to bring charges against alleged perpetrators of atrocities in other countries under the principle of universal jurisdiction.

Universal jurisdiction on the rise

Universal jurisdiction applies to crimes under international law, such as genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, on the grounds that these crimes are an offence against humanity as a whole and as such aren’t bound by borders.

Some states, including France and Germany, have passed laws to enable universal jurisdiction prosecutions. Many powerful states however still refuse to recognise the principle, citing national sovereignty, the long-established doctrine of immunity for heads of state and the potential for prosecutions to be politically motivated.

Yet the question of whether government leaders should be immune from prosecution has increasingly been contested. Immunity wasn’t granted when leaders of Sierra Leone and former Yugoslavia were prosecuted for crimes committed during civil wars, and the Rome Statute, which established the International Criminal Court (ICC), removed the principle of immunity where it has jurisdiction. Ironically, the Trump administration, which resists international accountability over its officials, may have contributed to further eroding the doctrine of immunity by abducting Venezuela’s president Nicolás Maduro and placing him on trial for drug trafficking.

Universal jurisdiction cases have increased since the end of the Cold War. Belgium, Finland and Germany convicted people for their role in the Rwanda genocide. Switzerland secured the first guilty verdict for crimes committed in the Liberian civil war, while France convicted another Liberian war criminal in 2022. Germany convicted a Bosnian paramilitary soldier of genocide and, in 2021 and 2022, found two Syrian officials guilty of atrocity crimes.

Hopes of justice

Rohingya people have no hope of justice in a country that refuses even to recognise them as citizens, so diaspora civil society organisations are seeking it wherever they find opportunities. In 2025, an Argentinian court issued arrest warrants against Min Aung Hlaing and other senior Myanmar officials on crimes against humanity and genocide charges, in a case brought by a Rohingya organisation. Earlier this year, a human rights organisation filed a criminal case against the Myanmar regime in Timor-Leste. When authorities appointed a senior prosecutor to examine the case, Myanmar retaliated by expelling Timor-Leste’s ambassador.

These efforts complement proceedings in international courts. In 2024, the ICC issued an arrest warrant against Min Aung Hlaing for crimes against humanity, while in January, hearings began at the International Court of Justice in a case brought by the Gambian government accusing Myanmar of breaching the Genocide Convention. It isn’t a question of choosing between national jurisdictions and international courts, but rather of taking every avenue available to demand justice.

Universal jurisdiction has its limits. Those accused tend to be safe when they hold power; when states have successfully prosecuted perpetrators, it’s after they’ve lost the power that enabled their crimes. Currently, this means attempts to hold Israel’s leaders accountable for the genocide in Gaza, such as arrest warrants a Turkish court issued against 37 officials, only have symbolic value. Cases motivated by political point-scoring also risk discrediting the principle, as when a body created by Malaysia’s former prime minister Mahathir Mohamad found an array of US officials guilty in absentia, without legal basis or consequence.

Actions under universal jurisdiction, when targeted at evident offenders, can nonetheless help build moral pressure and signal that justice may eventually come. At a time when the brutal and illegitimate Myanmar regime is buttressed by China, India and Russia, and with the USA easing its pressure in pursuit of economic benefits, it matters that other countries keep holding the line, isolating the junta and exposing its atrocities.

It matters all the more when pressure comes from Southeast Asian countries, depriving the Myanmar regime of the excuse that human rights accountability is a western imposition. Two members of the Association of Southeast Asian nations, Indonesia and Timor-Leste, have now taken action against a fellow member. But other attempts in the region have faltered. Philippine authorities declined to proceed when five survivors of atrocities filed a case in 2023, while an investigation civil society filed with Indonesia’s national human rights commission that same year, alleging that Indonesian companies were supplying military equipment to Myanmar, has so far seen no progress.

As 2026 president of the UN Human Rights Council, Indonesia is uniquely placed to take the lead in the pursuit of justice for atrocity crimes. Indonesian authorities must treat this case as a priority and give it the attention and resources it needs.

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

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Who benefits from a war of choice against Iran?

The immediate political winners may include President Donald Trump and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. But if the war continues for a longer period, the political consequences for both Trump and Netanyahu could be uncertain. However, the most consistent beneficiaries are defense contractors, defense manufacturers and military lobbyists, who profit regardless of the outcome.

A. K. Abdul Momen

Despite vast reserves of oil and gas, the very engines of global prosperity—many nations across the region continue to face instability, poverty, and insecurity. From Palestine to Yemen, and from Iraq to Afghanistan, millions lack basic necessities, including food, safety, and economic opportunity.

In fact, millions of people in Muslims countries like Bahrain, UAE, Qatar, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Oman, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Syria, Algeria, Tunisia, Nigeria, Indonesia, Malaysia, Bangladesh, etc have been suffering from war and terror, from food deficiency and safety and security of life and liberty.

No wonder, their wealth often flows outward, with elites investing in more stable, non-Muslim countries rather than building productive industries, infrastructure, or research capacity at home. Their investment, if any, in their home countries or Muslim communities are mostly concentrated in building a mosque, a prayer house or a madrassa for poor students.

They are reluctant to build a hospital, a road, a manufacturing or industrial plant, a bridge, a technical school or a research center. This imbalance contributes to long-term structural weakness.

A critical question emerges: what ensures national security?

Increasingly, it appears that states possessing nuclear weapons and long-range missile capabilities enjoy greater deterrence and stability. The case of North Korea illustrates this paradox.

Despite isolation and adversaries, it maintains regime security through nuclear capability. This raises a troubling implication: does survival in today’s world require nuclear armament? Should their leadership acquire nuclear capability to safeguard their national security and stability?

The consequences of a U.S.-Israel conflict with Iran would extend far beyond the battlefield. Even after hostilities end, the region would likely face prolonged economic damage, weakened infrastructure, and fractured political trust.

Countries such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, Iraq, Oman, Lebanon and Iran could suffer severe economic disruption and internal instability.

Moreover, the strategic dynamics of such a conflict risk deepening divisions within the Muslim world itself. Military actions and retaliations particularly involving foreign bases in regional states could lead to intra-regional damage, further destabilizing already fragile alliances.

Another question, should leadership allow foreign bases in its home turf to guarantee national security? Or will it welcome more insecurity and conflict? Should leadership deny foreign bases in its own territory? Can they avoid such bases?

In case of Bangladesh, the ousted popular Prime Minister of Bangladesh Sheikh Hasina refused her territory to be used as a military base for a foreign government and it cost her job, her government was overthrown. Can they afford to deny a powerful foreign government?

From a geopolitical perspective, wars of this nature often reshape control over resources and influence. Economic motivations particularly access to energy and mineral resources cannot be overlooked in understanding strategic decision-making.

This leads to a deeper ethical question: do power and victory ultimately outweigh principles such as justice, human rights, and moral leadership? Ethics, human rights, fairness and morality are these the sermons of the weak and priests only? Does Machiavelli sounds right— survival of the fittest?

In fact, the logic often resembles the political realism associated with Niccolò Machiavelli—where success is measured by survival and dominance rather than ethical conduct. Machiavelli describes a sneaky, cunning, and manipulative personality that uses deceit, duplicity, and unethical methods to achieve goals often in politics and business as a success story.

And history tends to remember the victors only. Yet the long-term cost—human suffering, instability, and moral compromise—raises the question of whether victory alone defines true leadership.

Professor Dr. A. K. Abdul Momen is Former Foreign Minister of Bangladesh

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Muslim History Month poster- artist Siddhesh Gautam

By Mariya Salim
DELHI, India, Mar 18 2026 (IPS)

In public discourse today, Muslims often appear as subjects of debate rather than authors of their own histories. Discussions about Muslim societies tend to revolve around geopolitics, security or conflict, leaving little space for the cultural, artistic and intellectual traditions that have shaped Muslim communities across centuries.

Reclaiming these narratives is therefore about reclaiming narrative authority. As a Muslim woman, I have often seen how Muslim voices are sidelined even when conversations centre on our own communities and pasts. It was within this context that I started Muslim History Month, together with my friend and colleague Ashwini KP, currently UN Special Rapporteur on Racism, in 2020, choosing to mark it during the month of Ramadan. Hosted on www.zariya.online, the initiative emerged from a simple conviction: communities must have the space to document and narrate their own histories.

Mariya Salim

They remind us that history is not only about remembering the past but also about challenging exclusion and reshaping how societies understand themselves. Muslim History Month builds on this legacy by creating a platform where Muslims, and others who are allies, themselves reflect on the diversity, complexity and richness of their historical and cultural experiences.

What began as a modest collaborative project has since developed into a global platform bringing together writers, scholars, artists and activists to explore overlooked dimensions of Muslim histories. Contributors have written from Egypt, the United States, Palestine, Nepal and Russia, among others, representing a range of communities including Pasmanda, Tsakhurs, Roma and Uyghur Muslims. This year alone there are contributors from over 6 countries, from Lebanon and Palestine to India, Egypt and Indonesia.

The urgency of documenting these histories is reflected in the commitment of the contributors themselves. Rima Barakat, an academic in Islamic Art History from the Lebanese American University (LAU), wrote her contribution this year from Beirut. Explaining why she chose to participate in our endeavour despite living amid ongoing conflict, she observed:

“War always incites me to act culturally and to contribute amidst political turmoil. Historically, during World War I and World War II, artists and writers produced prolifically and contributed to sustaining a cultural economy. That is what I do today and how survival is measured by cultural and artistic endurance.”

Mihrab at the Jami Masjid, 17th century, Bijapur, India. Photo- Author Rajarshi Sengupta

Her words capture something fundamental about the role of culture in difficult times. Artistic expression is often treated as secondary to more immediate political realities. Yet history repeatedly shows that culture can become one of the most powerful ways communities endure, remember and rebuild.

The first edition of Muslim History Month brought together writers from different parts of the world to document overlooked aspects of Muslim communities. Contributors wrote about subjects ranging from Sheedi Muslims in Pakistan to what Ramadan/Ramzaan means. The second edition shifted the focus toward Muslim women from across the world who are no longer with us, many of whose contributions have faded from historical memory, from architect Zaha Hadid to Indian Spy Noor Inayat Khan. By revisiting their lives and work, the edition sought to address the erasures that often shape how Muslim women’s life and experiences are recorded.

The third edition, launched this year, turns its attention to Muslim art and architecture. Rather than limiting the discussion to monumental structures or gallery-based art alone, the edition explores a wider spectrum of creative practices. Art and architecture here include performance traditions, Calligraphy and mosque architecture, craft practices like Rogan Art, cultural rituals like wearing Amulets and everyday acts of creativity through which communities’ express faith, identity and belonging.

One of the contributions by Kawther Alkholy Ramadan in Canada for instance reflects on the aftermath of the Afzaal family murders in London, Ontario. In 2021, the Afzaal family was deliberately targeted and killed in an act of anti-Muslim violence that deeply affected the local community. Rather than focusing solely on the violence of the attack, Ramadan’s piece examines how Muslim women responded through creative and cultural expression.

Stories such as these challenge conventional assumptions about what counts as art. They show how creativity often emerges most powerfully in moments of crisis, when communities search for ways to process trauma and reaffirm their presence.

Another contribution from Indonesia by Adzka Haniina Albarri, for instance explores the performative art known as Shalawat Musawa. Shalawat refers to devotional invocations offered by Muslims in honour of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) The article examines how Shalawat Musawa has become a space where discussions around gender equality can be articulated. By encouraging women’s participation in a devotional practice historically dominated by men, performers are using art to engage with evolving debates about gender and social justice.

Across the edition, similar stories emerge from different parts of the world. Some pieces engage with contemporary artists, including an interview with world renowned Tunisian calligrapher Karim Jabbari, articles by Palestinian jewellery designer Mai Zarkawi and Egyptian academic Balsam Abdul Rahman Saleh. Others explore artistic traditions shaped by migration, diaspora and local cultural histories.

Muslim History Month III highlights how artistic expression remains embedded in everyday life. From neighbourhood cultural initiatives, architectural marvels, discussions on the Bihari Script Quran in Dallas Museum, to devotional performances, these practices reveal how creativity continues to shape the social and spiritual landscapes of Muslim communities.

They also illustrate the diversity within Muslim cultural production. Muslim societies are far from monolithic, and neither are their artistic traditions.

At a time when public discourse frequently reduces Muslims to political headlines or security narratives, these stories offer an important counterpoint. They remind us that Muslim histories are also histories of creativity, scholarship, craftsperson-ship and cultural exchange.

Documenting these histories is itself an act of preservation. History, and for that matter the present that remains unwritten, are easily forgotten or misrepresented. When communities claim authority to narrate their own pasts and present, they challenge the structures that have historically excluded them from broader cultural narratives. Therefore, Muslim History Month, then, is not only about looking back. It is also about shaping how Muslim histories will be understood in the future.

As Rima Barakat’s reflection from Beirut reminds us, even in times marked by war and uncertainty, cultural production persists. For many communities, it is precisely through artistic endurance that survival itself is measured.

Beyond the stereotypes and headlines that dominate public discourse lies a far richer narrative, one shaped by art, architecture, memory and the collective imagination of communities determined to tell their own stories.

Mariya Salim is co-founder of Zariya. She is a Human Rights activist and an international SGBV expert based in Delhi India.
https://zariya.online/category/muslim-history-month-iii/

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

The dead Ali Khamenei hands over the Iranian flag to a mirror image of his son, Mojtaba Khamenei. From the web site https://english.khamenei.ir/

By Jan Lundius
STOCKHOLM, Sweden, Mar 12 2026 (IPS)

The US/Israeli war on Iran might be like messing with a hornets’ nest, spreading fear and chaos all around. The Israeli government claimed that the war was a “preventive” measure to address an immediate threat of Iran constructing a nuclear bomb. However, this war has obviously been meticulously planned over a long period of time and it now seemed to be the right time to put this plan into action. The Iranian air defences had been weakened through earlier attacks, while recent Israeli strikes decapitated Hezbollah’s Lebanese leadership, Iran’s allies north of Israel. With Gaza destroyed and Syria’s unreliable Assad gone, Netanyahu had succeeded in securing his party’s coalition with the far-right and could continue to count upon the support of the Trump Administration, providing Israel with a free hand vis-à-vis the Palestinians and turning a blind eye to the massacre of civilians. The U.S. is continuously supporting Isreal with missile-defence systems, coordination, cooperation, and intelligence sharing.

It appears as if the U.S./Israeli forces now intend to bomb everything in Iran – from its highest leaders, down to police stations and thus hope that Iran will exhaust its defence capacities. The aggressors furthermore claim they intend to achieve an Iranian regime change. However, even if Iran’s ninety-two million people now are trapped between a bloody war and a repressive regime it is highly unlikely that a tolerant government will emerge from a battered rump version of the Islamic Republic of Iran. It is more probable that such a state will be governed by leaders even more determined to cling to their power after gaining more confidence after overcoming a terrible crisis. U.S. actions seem to be more improvised than Israel’s and it seems that they have not learned from the Afghanistan failure, i.e. the difficulties in achieving and maintaining a regime change through military means.

The U.S. government rejoiced from the killing of Ali Khamenei – a mid-ranking cleric who did not meet the constitutional requirements of being a marja, i.e. a cleric enabled to make legal decisions for followers and clerics below him in rank. Instead, Khamenei was during his 36 years and six months in power forced to rely on his close ties with the powerful Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). Now, in spite of the fact that the Iranian revolution’s father, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, had declared that “hereditary succession is sinister, evil, and invalid,” Khamenei’s son has been elected as Supreme Leader. So far Mojtaba Khamenei has acted in the shadow of his father and few Iranians have heard him speak. He has not made any public appearances, never given a sermon, or made any declarations; just working in close relation with the leaders of IRGC.

Whereas the Iranian Army acts as protector of the nation’s sovereignty, the IRGC “safeguards” the Islamic Republic. With more than 125,000 members it serves as Iran’s coast guard, operates a media outlet called Sepah News, and controls the nuclear program. From its origins as an ideological militia, the IRGC now controls nearly every aspect of Iranian politics, economy (including energy and food industries), as well as the nation’s social life. It counts upon a paramilitary volunteer militia with 90,000 active personnel. One of IRGC’s branches is the Qods Force, which specialises in unconventional warfare and military intelligence operations.

The presence, terror and fear created by IRGC have made it difficult for any internal opposition to get organised. In Iran there is nothing akin to the African National Congress with leaders like Nelson Mandela. If a leader would arise from the mess created by the U.S. and Israel it would more likely be a man like Alia Ardashir Larijani, a former commander of the IRGC who holds a B.Sc. in computer science and mathematics, as well as a PhD in Western philosophy.

Larijani has served as deputy minister in various cabinets, been head of the Republic’s broadcasting service, and Secretary of the Supreme National Security Council. Larijani also served as Iran’s top nuclear envoy. However, in late March 2025 he stated that if Iran would be attacked by the United States and Israel, the nation would have no other choice than to develop nuclear weapons. Larijani is accused of having played a key role in the deadly crackdown against opposition protests that gripped the country in January this year. Since the end of December 2025, he is regarded to be the de facto leader of Iran and after originally opposing the election of Mojtaba Khamenei, Larijani has now rallied his supporters behind the newly elected Supreme Leader.

Apart from the fear of an internal collapse of the Islamic Republic of Iran, there are concerns about the economic effects of the current war. Beyond the physical damage, Epic Fury has been quite costly for the Trump Administration that so far has deployed nearly half of the United States’ air power and roughly a third of its naval assets. So far, the Pentagon has not released an official estimate of the cost of the war, but it is currently believed to be USD 2 billion per day. Meanwhile, stocks have plunged all over the world and the price of crude oil spiked from USD 65 per barrel to USD 120 after the Strait of Hormuz, through which a fifth of the world’s oil and liquified gas passes, had been effectively closed.

89 percent of Saudi Arabia’s oil shipments used to pass through the Strait, while Kuwait and Qatar shipped 100 percent, Iraq 97 percent and the United Arab Emirates 66 percent. Qatar has so far been worst hit, particularly since it took the place of Russia for liquified gas exports to Europe. Kuwait has now been forced to suspended its production and export of crude oil and liquefied natural gas (of which it is second to the U.S. as the world’s largest provider).

Winners of this situation are large net energy exporters outside the Gulf whose ability to sell abroad remains unaffected, such as Norway, Russia and Canada, and to a lesser degree Nigeria and Angola. Not the least the U.S. is a winner thanks to its expanding fracking industry. At the other end of the spectrum sit economies where energy imports account for a large share of their GDP. This group includes countries such as South Korea, Taiwan, Japan, India and China, as well as most European economies including France, Germany and the UK.

It has even been speculated that the war on Iran is a means of USA to hurt China’s economy. In 2025, China bought more than 80 percent of Iran’s shipped oil, around 12 percent of China’s crude oil imports, while approximately 3 percent came from Venezuela (now subjugated by the U.S.).

In 2021, China and Iran signed a 25-year strategic partnership, meaning that China promised to invest USD 400 billion in exchange for keeping Iranian oil flowing. China does not view its “alliances” in the same way the West does, meaning that its government does not sign mutual defence treaties and will not come rushing to its allies’ aid. However, an unpredictable and dysfunctional actor as the U.S. has become under the Trump administration is a great source of unease for Beijing. Worries worsened by the fact that China’s annual economic growth target has reached its lowest level since 1991. Even as Beijing continues its rapid development of high-tech and renewables industries the country is currently battling with low consumption levels, a prolonged property crisis, and a huge local debt.

A big economy like China’s, as well as other wealthy nations, might find means to mitigate rising oil prices, but it’s much worse for smaller, poorer nations. Disruptions to energy supply as a result of a prolonged conflict will have far greater ramifications economically in the Global South than in the West. As an example, a country like Bangladesh, which is particularly dependent on Middle Eastern oil, not least for its garment industry, has already imposed daily limits on fuel sales after panic buying and stockpiling raised concerns about supply. Furthermore, approximately 13 million Bangladeshi expatriates are currently supporting the country’s economic stability through their remittances, of them 8 million live and work within the Middle East.

The same is true of Pakistan, with over 11 million Pakistanis living and working abroad, mainly in the Gulf states. In January 2025 alone, the country received USD 3 billion in remittances, reflecting a 25 percent year-on-year surge. Furthermore, Pakistan shares a 900-kilometre border with Iran and a collapse of Iran into civil war is a constant worry for Pakistan, which also maintains a military relationship with Saudi Arabia with an estimated 1,500 to 2,000 Pakistani troops stationed in the kingdom. If the situation worsens, as Saudi infrastructure is hit any further, it is only a matter of time that Saudi Arabia will ask Pakistan to contribute towards its defence. Pakistan’s border areas with Iran and its huge Shia population (generally well-disposed towards their fellow believers on the other side of the frontier) are already highly volatile and if internal strife within Iran spills over the border, the fallout for Pakistan would be severe. Pakistan is furthermore recently engaged in a war with Afghanistan. On 6 March, Pakistan carried out air strikes in more than twenty locations across Afghanistan, while the Taliban targeted dozens of Pakistani border posts.

Other neighbouring nations to Iran are equally nervous. In Turkmenistan prices have almost doubled compared with pre-war levels. With an average salary of around USD 714 a large portion of the population is hard hit, since Turkmenistan is importing a considerable amount of industrial goods from Iran – like steel, construction materials, and petrochemicals, as well as food and household items that constitute a critical lifeline for many of its residents.

Turkey is also alarmed by the present situation and worries what will happen if Iran collapses into warring factions. If the U.S./Israel confrontation with Iran deepens, particularly in ways that involve regime change with a spillover effect on Turkey, or security implications as a result of expanded U.S./Israeli cooperation with hostile Kurdish militants, this war could quickly evolve into another fault line in U.S.-Turkish relations.

To sum up – the U.S./Israel attack on Iran is very unlikely to result in a regime change, but might instead result in a chaotic and bloody collapse of the entire country. The war is a high-risk game that might have dangerous effects not only on Iran and its immediate neighbours, but the entire world as well.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Participants observe a visual montage linking Abu Dhabi’s Zayed Award ceremony, the Sant’Egidio interfaith forum in Rome and the Astana Congress of Leaders of World and Traditional Religions — symbolizing the emerging “rehearsal space” where religion, civil society and state diplomacy converge. (Credit: INPS / Illustrative image)

By Katsuhiro Asagiri
ABU DHABI, United Arab Emirates, Feb 24 2026 (IPS)

As wars drag on and the international order grows increasingly unstable, Abu Dhabi has been offering a different kind of narrative. It sought to recognize early efforts at reconciliation, bring religious leaders into the same space, and place former adversaries under the same spotlight. At the heart of the February 4, 2026 Zayed Award for Human Fraternity ceremony was an attempt to make visible, in a public setting, the choice of moving in the direction of easing conflict.

Pope Francis and Ahmed el-Tayeb sign the Document on Human Fraternity。Credit: Vatican News

Seven years on, the international landscape has become even more fragmented. Even so, the organizers have framed the ceremony not merely as an awards event, but as a symbolic platform intended to encourage a minimum measure of restraint when politics turns turbulent.

Shoring Up a Fragile Peace

The moment that drew the most attention this year was the recognition of Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan and Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev for their peace agreement. After decades of confrontation, the award functioned as a form of international endorsement for a still-fragile peace process in the South Caucasus.

Zayed Prize 2026 to Armenia and Azerbaijan Credit: Vatican News

The award, however, extended beyond state leadership. The 2026 laureates also included Afghan girls’ education advocate Zarqa Yaftali and the Palestinian nonprofit Taawon, honoring efforts to continue humanitarian and development work under conditions of conflict and political instability. It also underscores the award’s intention to bridge “top-down politics,” such as peace agreements, with “bottom-up peacebuilding” that supports communities on the ground. The underlying message is clear: even with treaties and agreements in place, peace cannot take root if the schools, healthcare, and local support systems needed to sustain society remain fragile.

A Dialogue Circuit Linking Rome and Astana

The closing ceremony held against the backdrop of the ancient Roman ruins, the Colosseum. Credit: Community of Sant’Egidio

Further east, Kazakhstan has institutionalized interfaith engagement through the Congress of Leaders of World and Traditional Religions in Astana. Both the Holy See and the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar have consistently participated, helping to sustain the congress as a venue for structured interreligious dialogue.

Seen in this light, Rome, Astana, and Abu Dhabi are not merely separate events; they emerge as nodal points in a broader space of dialogue that links religion and diplomacy. Put differently, they function like a regular service designed to keep the lines of communication open—ensuring that the ability to meet and talk does not fall silent.

Religious Actors Across Borders

On Feb. 4, a Soka Gakkai delegation led by Vice President Hirotsugu Terasaki attended the 2026 Zayed Award for Human Fraternity ceremony in Abu Dhabi, UAE. At the invitation of @ZayedAward, the delegation joined global religious leaders. On Feb. 3, the delegation met with Judge Mohamed Abdelsalam, Secretary-General of the Zayed Award for Human Fraternity and they delivered a letter from Soka Gakkai President Minoru Harada to the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar His Eminence Ahmed Al-Tayeb. Credit: SGI

Ahead of the Abu Dhabi ceremony, Terasaki met with Judge Mohamed Abdelsalam, Secretary-General of the award, and delivered a letter from Minoru Harada, President of Soka Gakkai, addressed to Grand Imam Ahmed Al-Tayeb. The two exchanged views on the need to further strengthen “heart-to-heart dialogue” that transcends religious differences.

The stages created by the United Arab Emirates and Kazakhstan—both of which place emphasis on “spiritual diplomacy”—are more than mere events. What gives these settings moral authority and lends them ethical weight as arenas for peacebuilding is a sustained architecture of dialogue, underpinned by relationships that religious and civil-society leaders have cultivated over many years. Put differently, it is a system for meeting regularly and ensuring that lines of communication do not fall silent. Even when interstate relations grow tense, religious and civil-society networks can keep channels of dialogue open, serving as a buffer against rupture.

The fact that Kazakh President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev engaged with this year’s award ceremony through a video address, and that Director-General Terasaki has moved across dialogue venues such as Abu Dhabi, Rome, and Astana, quietly suggests the presence of such networks where religion and diplomacy intersect. Likewise, the Holy See has also been one of the actors continuously involved in all three of these settings.

Kazakh President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev extended his congratulations to Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev and Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan on being given the Sheikh Zayed Award for Human Fraternity in a video address. Credit: Akorda

Shared Words, Different Realities

The vocabulary repeatedly invoked in these forums is strikingly consistent: fraternity, coexistence, dialogue, and human dignity. At a time when multilateralism is faltering and traditional channels of mediation are weakening, this language also serves a political purpose—allowing states to signal, at home and abroad, a preference for dialogue over force and to project the image that they are not stoking confrontation, but providing a venue in which tensions can be managed.

Yet the distance between ceremony and reality does not disappear. Celebrating a peace agreement does not necessarily guarantee its implementation. Honoring efforts in girls’ education does not automatically reopen classrooms. Proclaiming coexistence does not stop violence overnight. Awards can encourage compromise and bless dialogue, but they are not mechanisms that can compel outcomes.

Even so, governments and religious and civil-society networks continue to engage in these venues—through attendance, public statements, and sustained involvement—because they remain among the few public settings where opposing parties can appear side by side. There are not many spaces where actors in tense relationships can stand in the same room, where restraint is openly affirmed, and where interfaith ties can function as informal diplomatic channels.

A Place to “Rehearse” Peace

A woman crafts a mosaic depicting a peace dove in the Za’atari refugee camp in Jordan. Credit: UN Women/Christopher Herwig

They also point toward the emergence of a new diplomatic domain where religion, civil society and state interests converge.

In today’s international environment, it is precisely these small points of contact that can carry real significance. Before peace is institutionalized as policy, there are only limited spaces where its shape can be publicly “rehearsed.”

The Abu Dhabi ceremony is one of those rare stages. It did not resolve a conflict, nor did it erase suspicion. Even so, choosing dialogue—and continuing to make that choice visible in the open—constitutes an act in itself: a clear signal, in an age of polarization, of a commitment to restraint over enmity.

This article is brought to you by INPS Japan in collaboration with Soka Gakkai International, in consultative status with the UN’s Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC).

INPS Japan

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Refugees by Honoré Daumier (1808-1879)

By Jan Lundius
STOCKHOLM, Sweden, Jan 13 2026 (IPS)

At the moment, ICE’s advancement in the U.S. is apparently dividing the nation’s population into desired and undesirable elements. The Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) was born after the September 11, 2001 attacks on the Twin Towers and intended to be a response to terrorism. However, with Donald Trump’s return to the White House, federal immigration agents have become the president’s praetorian guard, implementing his immigration politics.

ICE has currently 22,000 employees, a number destined to grow thanks to new recruits. Its budget is USD 30 billion a year. During 2025, the agency’s spending on fire arms has grown 600 percent. Its agents generally act with their faces covered, and move around heavily armed, in unmarked vehicles.

ICE agent, photo from Huffington Post

This while it has been indicated that between 900,000 and 1.6 million Ukrainians on Russian-occupied territories have been deported to Russia, including 260,000 children. Outside of Europe similar activities are taking place in several other areas. For example, in Gaza where from the beginning of the Gaza war on 13 October 2023, the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) forced the evacuation of 1.1 million people from Northen Gaza, while the land strip has been bombed and destroyed.

We have to admit that after reaching catastrophic dimensions during the last century the phenomenon of ethnic cleansing is still with us. As the herd animals that we are, we humans have become afflicted with the unfortunate trait of dividing individuals into groups, which we judge and treat according to broad generalizations based on people’s group affiliation, regardless of their unique personality.

Given the xenophobic storms now raging in both in the U.S. and Europe, it may be appropriate to recall the human disasters that such behaviour has caused on their continents. The genocide that the indigenous people of the U.S. were subjected to is well known, and also when during World War II U.S. forcibly relocated and incarcerated about 120,000 U.S, citizens of Japanese descent in various concentration camps. Lesser known is probably the forced deportation of between 300,000 and 2 million Mexicans and Mexican-Americans during the Great Depression between 1929 and 1939, forty to sixty percent of them were U.S, citizens and overwhelmingly children.

The European 20th century history of mass deportations and human slaughter is even darker. It began at the outskirts of the continent when Russian forces between 1863 and 1878 invaded Circassia by the Black Sea, systematically killing and deporting 95 to 97 percent of its population, resulting in the deaths of between 1 and 1.5 million. This was followed by the pogroms, i.e. mass killings of Jews, in for example Odessa (1881), Kishinev (1903), Kiev (1905), and Bialystok (1906), leaving more than 2,000 dead and resulting in a mass migration of Jews from the affected areas, worsened during the following civil war when 35,000 to 250,000 Jews were massacred between 1918 and 1920. At the same time the Bolshevik regime killed and/or deported an estimated 300,000 to 500,000 Don Cossacks.

After World War I between 90,000 and 300,000 Albanians were deported from Yugoslavia and up to 80,000 were killed during this new nation’s colonization of Kosovo. The expulsion and genocide of Armenians and Greeks which occurred in Turkish Anatolia both during and after World War I resulted in mass migrations and between 2 and 3 million Armenians, Greeks and Assyrians were killed. Over 1.2 million ethnic Greeks were expelled from Turkey in 1922-1924, while the Greeks expelled 400,000 Muslims.

Even worse was to come. Between 1935 and 1945, Nazi Germany systematically killed an estimated 130,500 Roma and Sinti people and between 1938 and 1945 more than 6 million Jews. During the same period Nazi German forces killed 3 million Ukrainians, 1,6 million Poles, 1,6 million Russians, 1,4 million Byelorussians. The German allies in Croatia massacred between 200,000 and 500,000 Serbs, as well as approximately 25,000 Roma/Sinti and 30,000 Jews. Their adversaries, the Serbs, killed 32,000 Croats and 33.000 Bosniaks.

The overwhelming part of all these victims were civilians, not combatants, and the estimations above are only some examples of massacres and deportations that occurred all over Europe during World War II.

In the Soviet Union (USSR), Stalin ordered the resettlement of more than 3,5 million ethnic minorities – Ukrainians, Volga Germans, Chechens, Balts, Kalmyks, Crimean Tatars, Balkars, Karachays, Turks, and Ingush. Many of them never returned to their homelands and up to 400,000 deaths due to these expulsions were archived by Soviet authorities.

Before that the Holodomor, a massive man-made famine from 1932 to 1933 had killed 3.5 to 5 million in Ukraine, as well as 62,000 in the Kuban area, while over 300,000 Ukrainians were deported to Kazakhstan, where many died.

All these numbers are just estimations and they might be higher or lower. However, we have to keep in mind that behind every single number we find cruelty and unimaginable suffering.

At the conclusion of World War I, it was borders that were invented and adjusted, while people were on the whole left in place, but during and after World War II what happened was rather the opposite – boundaries remained broadly intact (though USSR significantly expanded its territory) and people were moved instead … millions of them.

For example, 1.6 to 2 million Poles were by the invading Germans expelled from their lands, not counting millions of slave workers deported from Poland to the German Reich. At the same time the USSR transferred 380,000 Poles from their home territories, while 410 000 Finns had to leave Karelia, ceded to the USSR.

On top of that, losses on the battle fields were enormous – Soviet Union lost 6 million soldiers, Germany 4 million, Italy 400,000, and Romania 300,000. If combining military and civilian losses Poland lost one person in 5 of her pre-war population, Yugoslavia one in 8 and Greece one in 14, compared with one in 15 in Germany and 1one in 77 in France.

Nazi Germany captured 5.5 million Soviet soldiers and out of them 3.3 million died in the camps, of the 750,000 German soldiers captured by USSR 20,000 survived.

All this cruelty continued after the war and it was now members of ethnic groups connected with loosing nations who were lumped together into one unit, where individuals came to suffer, both the guilty and the innocent ones.

At the Potsdam Conference from 17 July to 2 August 1945 the heads of the leading Allies – the USSR, the United Kingdom, and the U.S. – agreed upon “orderly and humane” expulsions of the “German populations” from Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary, but not Yugoslavia and Romania. As a result, between 13,5 and 16.5 million “ethnic Germans” were expulsed from Central and Eastern European countries.

Estimates of the number of those who died during this process are being debated and range from a half to 3 million. As an example, investigations by a joint German and Czech commission of historians did in 1995 established that 2.1 million ethnic Germans were deported from Czechoslovakia to Germany. The death toll was at least 15,000 persons, but it could range up to a maximum of 30,000 dead, if one assumes that many deaths were not reported.

Yugoslavia was a particularly horrifying example of ethnic cleansing both during and after World War II. As mentioned above Croats and Serbs constantly massacred each other. During the so called foibe massacres (foibes are sink holes common in the region and many victims were thrown into them) ethnic Italians were killed by Communist partisans. During and after the war these crimes caused an exodus amounting to between 230,000 and 350,000 “ethnic Italians”, estimates of massacred victims range from 3,000 to 11,000.

These are just a few examples of expulsions and massacres of some Europeans, without mentioning the horrible fate of many Greeks, Albanians, Bulgarians, Hungarians, Turks, and many others who happened to be minorities in countries where they had lived for centuries. While considering this often forgotten, or at least unmentioned, history of millions of unwelcomed victims and refugees criss-crossing a bombed out and miserable Europe it is difficult to comprehend that so many descendants of these suffering people are now gathering around xenophobic parties which make refugeeism, whether for one’s life, or due to general misery, a crime.

Contemplating the heavily armed ICE agents in the U.S. “liberating” their nation from “foreign elements” you might easily evoke images of equally armed SS troopers, Soviet NKVD agents, Romanian Iron Guards, Croatian Ustaše and many similar units who expelled, and often killed, ethnic groups all over Europe.

Main sources: Judt, Tony (2005) Postwar: A History of Europe since 1945. London: Vintage. Lieberman, Benjamin (2013) Terrible Fate: Ethnic Cleansing in the Making of Modern Europe. Lanham MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Totten, Samuel et al., eds. (1997) Century of Genocide; Eyewitness Accounts and Critical Views. New York: Garland Publishing.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

The panelists at the CIVICUS press briefing on the 2025 People Power Under Attack Report. Credit: Oritro Karim/IPS

By Oritro Karim
UNITED NATIONS, Dec 11 2025 (IPS)

Over the course of 2025, global civic space conditions have deteriorated sharply, with most countries experiencing some degree of obstructed civil liberties. As authoritarian governments strengthen their hold and have even escalated the use of military force to suppress public dissent, civilians report facing increasing limitations of freedoms of association, peaceful assembly, petition and religion, as well as notable crackdowns on press freedoms.

On December 9, CIVICUS Global Alliance published its 2025 People Power Under Attack report, which details the current conditions of civic space worldwide. The findings show that residents of 83 countries and territories now live with routinely denied freedoms—a stark contrast from the 67 countries recorded in 2020. Additionally, 15 countries have recorded considerable downgrades in civic freedoms, including the United States, France, and Germany, which were once seen as global models of democracy.

“We see a continued trend of attacks on people’s right to speak up, come together as a collective, and protest for their rights around the world,” said CIVICUS Secretary General Mandeep Tiwana ahead of the report’s launch. “In a context of rising authoritarianism and populism, no country seems immune from this deeply worrying trend.”

Only an estimated seven percent of the global population now live in countries with free or relatively free civic space—a staggering 50 percent decline from last year’s figures. This has raised alarm among humanitarian organizations, which stress the urgent need to safeguard civic freedoms as a foundation for accountable governance and inclusive democratic participation. CIVICUS highlighted three primary areas of concern: the detention of protestors, journalists, and human rights defenders. These trends underscore the accelerating breakdown of accountability for government corruption and human rights violations.

The report notes that governments detained protestors at more than 200 peaceful demonstrations across 82 countries, with authorities also disrupting protests in 70 countries, with 67 instances involving the use of excessive force. These operations targeted protests calling for action on issues such as government corruption, inadequate access to basic services, rising living costs, the climate crisis, and allegations of electoral fraud.

“We see protests as a crucial space where people can challenge injustice and can hold power to account but we are also watching that space shrink at a rate that should alarm us all,” said Joyce Bukuru, the Representative to the United Nations at Amnesty International.

Amnesty International has recorded the increasing frequency in which authorities suppress public dissent through three key trends. The first of which is that the legal environment for protest is “tightening very fast”. “Across the region, governments are adopting overly broad and outright punitive laws that make it harder for people to protest easily,” Bukuru said.

The organization also reported the widespread use of excessive force. Unlawful and violent policing tactics are routinely used by the government to silence dissent, with instances of arbitrary arrests, enforced disappearances, extrajudicial killings, and the use of weapons such as rubber bullets and stun grenades.

Protestors have increasingly been subjected to increased levels of surveillance, digital repression, and tech-facilitated abuse. Bukuru noted that AI-generated abuse is routinely used against activists, with some stating that they feel like “intimidation follows them everywhere”.

In Uganda and Thailand, Amnesty International recorded the use of tech-facilitated gender-based violence, in which female activists experienced smear campaigns, sexualized doctored images, and threats. “These tactics fundamentally change the risk calculus for anyone considering to engage in activism,” said Bukuru.

In the report, CIVICUS noted that repression of journalists remains pervasive globally. Arrests and detentions of journalists have been documented across 73 countries, with attacks being recorded in 54. Additionally, CIVICUS noted the rise of violations surrounding online freedoms, with roughly 11 percent of all violations occurring online. This includes internet and social media shutdowns, online censorship, coordinated disinformation and misinformation campaigns, and online threats.

The detention of human rights defenders is especially common in Africa south of the Sahara, the Americas, the Asia-Pacific, and the Middle East and North Africa (MENA). Female and LGBTQI+ activists are routinely subjected to threats of violence, attacks, and increased rates of detention.

“When human rights are not part of the conversation, that sends a message to the rest of the world,” said Widad Franco, the UN Advocacy Officer at Human Rights Watch (HRW). “When you see some kind of excessive response [from governments], the lack of human rights makes it much harder to protect people on the ground.”

CIVICUS emphasized the urgent need for stronger protections of civic space within the United States, with Tiwana warning of the significant global ripple effects that the current administration’s actions could trigger. Efforts by the current administration to suppress dissent, undermine freedom of association, and slash funding for foreign assistance risk setting a dangerous precedent for other governments to follow.

“The U.S. plays an outsized role around the world. When the U.S. signals that it no longer cares about democracy or human rights, it sends a strong message to [authoritarian governments] that they can do whatever they like,” said Tiwana. “Secondly, the U.S.’s own dismantling of USAID has triggered a reduction of funding by other wealthy democracies that are now repurposing the resources they give to civil society or democracy support programs towards their own economic interests.”

Tiwana noted that the United States’ current approach increasingly mirrors China’s model of transactional diplomacy, a shift that risks deepening global economic inequalities. This approach enables the wealthy to exert a disproportionate grasp over governance, while marginalized and lower-income groups continue to struggle for access to essential services and remain considerably underrepresented.

“It is unfortunate that the U.S. is following China’s cue and disregarding its long history of ensuring that human rights are a pillar of foreign policy,” said Tiwana. “Wealthy individuals are basically gaming the system and that is what is leading us into 19th century levels of inequality. People are being denied the agency to call out high-level corruption and to call out the denial of basic services.”

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

 
CIVICUS discusses US civil society action under the second Trump administration with Bridget Moix, General Secretary of the Friends Committee on National Legislation, the oldest faith-based lobbying organisation in the USA, advocating for peace, justice and environmental stewardship. Bridget has participated in the No Kings movement, a nationwide grassroots response to democratic backsliding and attacks on rights.

Bridget Moix

What drives the No Kings movement?

We are experiencing a rapid and devastating rise of authoritarianism. Since coming into office for his second term, Trump has embarked on a relentless campaign to undo generations of democratic institution building and international law while pursuing his own interests and the interests of billionaires. He has launched a militarised mass deportation campaign against immigrants that is ripping families apart and disappearing people from our streets. At the same time, he is dismantling core government agencies and firing hundreds of thousands of federal employees, punishing political opponents and rewarding those who are willing to serve him and his so-called ‘America First’ agenda.

Many people across the political spectrum are deeply troubled by what he’s doing and see it as a major attack on core principles of democracy, which have been at the heart of the struggle for freedom and equality since the country’s founding. The USA was founded on the rejection of rule by monarchy, a declaration against kings doing what they want at the expense of the public. The No Kings movement recalls that history and speaks out against Trump’s authoritarian actions today.

What have the protests been like, and what role is civil society playing beyond the streets?

The first protests brought about five million people in 1,500 cities and towns across the USA onto the streets to stand up for democracy. More recent protests in October brought seven million people out in 2,600 towns and cities.

What’s impressive about these protests is they bring a wide diversity of people together, across traditional social and political boundaries, who all believe our democracy is at real risk and we need to resist Trump’s authoritarianism. Even in very small towns, large groups gather, including people who have never protested before but feel they must do something now. That gives me hope.

Beyond the protests, US civil society has been very active and is learning and taking inspiration from movements elsewhere, as well as from our history of democratic struggle. Civil society groups have been quick to take legal action to sue the Trump administration for its overreach and continue to do so. They provide training every week on non-violent resistance and monitor immigration enforcement activity. Faith leaders have been speaking out and holding vigils and taking part in civil disobedience. Many groups are advocating with Congress to uphold its constitutional powers and provide a check on the Trump administration. Mutual aid groups are providing support for migrants and others at risk across the country. People are also working to build long-term resilience individually and in solidarity with others because we know this could be a long struggle.

How are immigration policies affecting communities?

Immigration raids and detentions are happening across the USA. I live in Washington DC, where Trump has deployed the national guard to further militarise our communities. The White House has given Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) free rein to terrorise people, detaining them from their homes, schools and workplaces as well as off the street, in front of their families. ICE officers drive unmarked vehicles, wear masks and do not follow due process as they should under US law.

Here in DC we’ve had at least 1,200 people detained in two months, probably many more. They are often taken without any warning and transported hundreds of miles to detention centres. Their families struggle to find out what happened to them and get legal help. Many people who are here legally have been swept up in these detentions, including US citizens. Many families are too afraid to send their children to school or leave their house. All of us know families who have been affected. The economy is also being affected.

However, the good news is that communities are standing up and working around the clock to support and protect one another, document and interrupt abuses and urge our leaders to push back against this mass cruelty campaign. Neighbourhood groups in Chicago, DC, Los Angeles and elsewhere are organising rapid response teams and sharing learning with each other to build resistance and solidarity.

How has the government responded to the protests?

The Trump administration doesn’t care about protests and just tries to ignore them or spread lies about them. We are used to that. What is important though is that we’re beginning to see more movement among members of Congress, whose constituents are protesting and advocating with them, and the protests are building the awareness and broader engagement of the public we need to push back.

Research shows that it takes 3.5 per cent of the population engaged in civil resistance to overcome authoritarian regimes. We have 330 million people in this country, and with each major protest we’re getting closer to that threshold.

What needs to happen to protect democracy?

We need to continue building an engaged and active movement of people who speak up, push back and advocate to rein in the Trump administration’s authoritarian takeover. We need to draw on the lessons from our history of struggles for freedom such as the Civil Rights movement, as well as lessons from grassroots movements around the world, as we grow non-violent civil resistance. We need more people protesting and protecting their neighbours, and we also need to turn that protest into policy action.

We need more people lobbying their members of Congress to stand up as an independent branch of government that responds to people and to do the right thing. Also critical is Congress standing up to protect its constitutional power of the purse and its authority over war. These are critical guardrails we need exercised against the militarised campaigns of the Trump administration at home and abroad.

We need to continue the legal pushback through the courts to uphold the rule of law and prevent the White House from further militarising our streets and corrupting government and elections. Solidarity across impacted communities in the USA and with civil society movements around the world will be very important to help us maintain and grow momentum here. We need to remember that our struggles for peace, justice and freedom are connected to people’s struggles all around the world.

GET IN TOUCH
Website
Bluesky
Facebook
Instagram
TikTok
YouTube
Bridget Moix/LinkedIn

SEE ALSO
Outsourcing cruelty: the offshoring of migration management CIVICUS Lens 15.Sep.2025
Trump and Musk take the chainsaw to global civil society CIVICUS Lens 07.Mar.2025
Trump 2.0: What to expect CIVICUS Lens 18.Jan.2025

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Nigerians at a newspaper stand with headlines reflecting the Trump versus Nigeria saga. Credit: Promise Eze/IPS

By Promise Eze
ABUJA, Nigeria, Nov 26 2025 (IPS)

Diplomatic relations between Nigeria and the US have continued to sour after US President Donald Trump threatened ‘military’ intervention over what some American lawmakers have called  “Christian genocide” in Africa’s most populous country.

In a series of posts on his social media platform on October 31, Trump accused the Nigerian government of ignoring the killing of Christians by “radical Islamists.” He warned that Washington would suspend all aid to Nigeria and would go into the “disgraced” country “guns-a-blazing” if Abuja failed to respond.

“Christianity is facing an existential threat in Nigeria. Thousands of Christians are being killed. Radical Islamists are responsible for this mass slaughter,” Trump wrote.

He went on to declare Nigeria a “country of particular concern” for alleged violations of religious freedom, instructing the US Department of War to prepare for “possible action” and warning that any strike would be “fast, vicious, and sweet.”

Trump’s remarks follow years of lobbying by American evangelical groups and conservative lawmakers who accuse the Nigerian government of complicity in attacks on Christians in the country.

This is not the first time Trump has accused an African country of genocide. Earlier this year, he claimed that South Africa was committing genocide against white farmers.

Recently, the US stayed away from the G20 summit in South Africa, apparently because of these widely disputed claims that white people are being targeted in the country.

Disputed Narratives

According to an organization that claims to track persecuted Christians, Open Doors International, Nigeria remains one of the world’s most dangerous places to be a Christian, ranking seventh on its 2025 World Watch List of nations where believers face the most persecution.

A report by the International Society for Civil Liberties and Rule of Law estimated that jihadist groups killed more than 7,000 Christians and abducted 7,800 others in 2025 alone. The organization asserts that since 2009, they have killed over 125,000 Christians, destroyed 19,000 churches, and displaced more than 1,100 communities.

Open Doors’ data suggests that Christians in northern Nigeria are 6.5 times more likely to be killed and five times more likely to be abducted than Muslims.

However, the Nigerian authorities have rejected claims of a state-sponsored Christian genocide, insisting that both Christians and Muslims suffer from extremist violence.

Analysts caution that portraying Nigeria’s insecurity as purely religious oversimplifies a crisis rooted in political and economic failure.

With its 230 million citizens divided almost evenly between Christians and Muslims, the country faces multiple overlapping threats, from Boko Haram’s Islamist insurgency and farmer-herder conflicts to ethnic rivalries and separatist agitations in the southeast.

While Christians are among those targeted, researchers note that many victims of armed groups are Muslims living in Nigeria’s predominantly Muslim north, where most attacks are not driven solely by religion.

Data from the US-based Armed Conflict Location and Event Data Project (ACLED) show that between January 2020 and September 2025, 20,409 civilians were killed in 11,862 attacks across Nigeria. Of these, only 385 incidents were explicitly linked to victims’ Christian identity, resulting in 317 deaths, while 196 attacks targeted Muslims, leaving 417 dead.

“Trump’s comment has certainly drawn global attention to the problem of insecurity in Nigeria, but it also raises questions about foreign influence and national sovereignty,” said Oludare Ogunlana, Professor of National Security at Collin College in Texas. “What I’ve observed is that many who present themselves as experts on African or global security often lack a nuanced understanding of Nigeria’s realities.”

He described Trump’s claims as misguided, stressing that Nigeria’s insecurity is multifaceted and should not be given a religious coloring.

“If you examine the situation closely, it is not a religious war. It reflects systemic governance failures, economic inequality, and weak law enforcement,” he said. “Citizens of all faiths—Christians, Muslims, atheists, and traditional believers—have suffered from kidnapping, organized crime, and other forms of violence. These criminal activities emerge from disparities in wealth and control over resources, resulting in loss of life across communities.”

Religious Tensions

Trump’s remarks have already inflamed tensions at home and analysts have cautioned that framing Nigeria’s insecurity as a religious conflict risks deepening divisions.

Several Muslim groups have condemned Trump’s comments as an attack on Islam and an attempt to demonize Nigeria’s Muslim population. They argue that Trump, who has long enjoyed support from evangelical Christians, is ill-suited to address the complexities of Nigeria’s Muslim-majority north.

Days after Trump’s comments, members of the Islamic Movement in Nigeria marched through Kano to protest the threat of US military action. Chanting “Death to America” and burning the US flag, demonstrators carried placards reading “There is no Christian genocide in Nigeria” and “America wants to control our resources.”

Northern states like Kano have a long history of bloody religious riots, and observers warn that renewed rhetoric could deepen sectarian divides in a region where relations between the two faiths remain fragile.

Christian and non-Muslim groups, on the other hand, maintain that persecution is real. They cite reports noting that more than 300 Nigerians have been killed over alleged blasphemy since 1999, with few perpetrators prosecuted. They call out government officials who support religious extremism and enforce shariah law on non-Muslims.

“It is an honor to be called an Islamic extremist,” wrote Bashir Ahmad, a former aide to ex-President Muhammadu Buhari, in a since-deleted post on X. Ahmad has previously called for the death penalty for blasphemy.

Deborah Eli Yusuf, a peace advocate with Jugaad Foundation for Peace and Nation Building, expressed concern that ongoing arguments could spill into real-world violence, making tensions difficult to contain.

She told IPS that the government should collaborate with stakeholders to maintain peace.

“This is an opportunity for the government to take the lead in facilitating honest interfaith conversations and dialogues that can lead to mutually agreeable resolutions. The government is best positioned to organize discussions that bring together critical stakeholders, including both religious and traditional leaders.

“Many of these conflicts also intersect with ethnic divisions, which further complicate the situation. The conversations happening now present a chance to address these divides. If left unchecked, rising tensions could deepen fragmentation in a country already divided along tribal, ethnic, and class lines,” she said.

Abba Yakubu Yusuf, Coordinator of the Reves Africa Foundation, believes that while Nigeria faces various forms of violent conflict orchestrated by multiple armed groups, it is misleading for the government to deny that Christians are being specifically targeted by some for their faith. He argues that acknowledging this reality is the first step toward finding solutions.

“Since as far back as 2009, the killings in southern Kaduna, Plateau, Benue, and parts of Kano states have been largely religiously motivated,” he claimed. “There was a massacre in Plateau state that saw an entire village wiped out with no survivors. In the northeast, while attacks target Muslims, there are exceptions. In southern Borno, for example, a largely Christian population has suffered the most. Overall, I would say there is a genocide occurring in Nigeria, and we should not lie to ourselves.”

Yusuf warned that continued denial by the government of systematic attacks on Christians, without addressing the root causes, could have serious consequences for the country’s economy.

“We need investors to come to our country, but they are hesitant. This creates a climate of fear and threatens economic growth,” he said.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Kumi Naidoo with Brazilian First Lady Janja Lula da Silva and Brazilian Cultural Minister Margareth Menezes and others at a panel called “Narratives and Storytelling to Face the Climate Crisis” during the 30th Conference of the Parties (COP30). Credit: Aline Massuda/COP30

By Joyce Chimbi
BELÉM, Brazil, Nov 18 2025 (IPS)

Decades ago, a little girl was born in a place called Cleveland, Ohio, in the heart of the United States of America. Born to a woman from the deep South, the place of Martin Luther King, her mother left her ancestral lands for the economic opportunities in the north.

“Off she went, making it all the way to the east side of Cleveland,” says Rev. Dr. Angelique Walker-Smith. “To the place where most people who look like me lived, and still live, and are subjected to policies of injustice, race and gender.”

Here, she found a more pressing issue.

“I couldn’t breathe, my mother couldn’t breathe, and we all couldn’t breathe,” she narrates.

This urbanization, driven by fossil fuels, occurred in Cleveland, Ohio, where her mother relocated and where her relatives still live today. During the Great Migration, over six million people of African descent traveled from the South, believing that economic opportunities would be better in the North.

Rev. Dr Angelique Walker-Smith, regional president of the World Council of Churches, speaks at an event titled ‘Faith for Fossil Free Future.’ Credit: IPS

“Upon our arrival, we discovered that we just couldn’t breathe.”

As one of eight regional presidents representing the World Council of Churches, Walker-Smith says for the World Council of Churches in over 105 countries, over 350 million adherents, and over 350 national churches all over the world, supporting the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty “is all about the issue of injustice, life and life more abundantly.”

“We are saying yes to the transition from fossil fuels to renewable life-giving energy.”

Kumi Naidoo, a prominent South African human rights and environmental justice activist and the President of the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty, says if the goal is renewable life-giving energy, the world has been going the wrong way for the past 30 years.

“If you come home from work and see water coming from the bathroom, you pick up the mop. But then you realized you left the tap running and the sink stopper on. What will you do first? Of course! You’ll turn off the water and pull the stopper. You will not start mopping the floor first.”

“For 30 years since the time science told us we need to change our energy system and many of our other systems, what we’ve been doing is mopping up the floor. If fossil fuels—oil, coal, and gas—account for 86 percent of what drives climate change, then we must turn off the tap.”

Masahiro Yokoyama was speaking at an event titled Faith for a Fossil-Free Future co-sponsored by Soka Gakkai International. Credit: Joyce Chimbi/IPS

Naidoo was speaking at an event titled ‘Faith for Fossil Free Future’ co-sponsored by several organizations, including Soka Gakkai International (SGI), Laudato Si’ Movement, GreenFaith—a global interfaith environmental coalition and EcoJudaism, a Jewish charity leading the UK Jewish Community’s response to the climate and nature crisis.

He spoke about the contradiction of the climate talks at the doorsteps of the Amazon, while licensing for drilling is still ongoing in the Amazon even as the people in the Amazon protest, calling for a fossil-free Amazon.

Continuing with the thread of contradictions, Naidoo said, “Some of you might be shocked that even though fossil fuels are 86 percent of the cause of climate change, it took 28 years before the words ‘fossil fuels’ could even be mentioned in the COP document. It is as absurd as Alcoholics Anonymous holding 28 years of conferences before they get the backbone to mention alcohol in an outcome document. If we continue on this path, we'll warm up the planet to the point where we destroy our soil and water, and it becomes so hot we can't plant food. The end result is that we'll be gone. The planet will still be here. And the good news is, once we become extinct as a species, the forests will grow back, and the oceans will recover.

“And actually, staying with that analogy, can you imagine how absurd it is that the largest delegation to this COP this year, last year, and every year is not even the host country?

“It’s not even Brazil—for every 25 delegates that are attending the COP, one of them is from the fossil fuel industry. That’s the equivalent of Alcoholics Anonymous having the largest delegation to its conference annually from the alcohol industry.”

People, groups and movements of different faiths and consciousness are increasingly raising their voices in robust support of a rapid fossil fuel phase-out, a massive and equitable upsurge in renewable energy, and the resources to make it happen—in the form of a Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Naidoo says the treaty is “a critical success ingredient for us not (only) to save the planet, but to secure our children and their children’s future, reminding ourselves that the planet does not need any saving.

“If we continue on this path, we warm up the planet to the point where we destroy our soil and water, and it becomes so hot we can’t plant food. The end result is that we’ll be gone. The planet will still be here. And the good news is, once we become extinct as a species, the forests will grow back, and the oceans will recover.”

This treaty is a proposed global agreement to halt the expansion of new fossil fuel exploration and production and to phase out existing sources like coal, oil, and gas in a just and equitable manner.

The initiative seeks to provide a legal framework to complement the Paris Agreement by directly addressing the supply side of fossil fuels.

Its ultimate goal is to support a global transition to renewable energy and is supported by a growing coalition of countries, cities, organizations, scientists, and activists. More importantly, it has multi-faith support.

Masahiro Yokoyama of the SGI, which is a diverse global community of individuals in 192 countries and territories who practice Nichiren Buddhism, spoke about the intersection between faith and energy transition and why the fossil fuel phase-out cannot wait.

“The just transition is also about how young people in faith can be the driving force to transformations.”

“So, a fossil fuel non-proliferation treaty, in my view, is not only about phasing out other fossil fuels but it also represents an ethical framework.”

“It’s a way to move forward while protecting people’s livelihoods and dignity within the context of the environment and also the local business and economies. So, a just transition is not merely a technical issue but a question of ethics, inclusion and solidarity,” Masahiro Yokoyama said.

The most pressing issue at hand is how to implement the treaty in the current environmental context.

“The pathway that we are following is a pathway that has been followed before. We are not going to negotiate this treaty within the COP or within the United Nations system. We’re going to do what the Landmine Treaty did.

“The landmine treaty was negotiated by 44 countries outside of the UN system and then brought to the UN General Assembly for ratification. The second question that people ask, justifiably, is, what about the powerful exporting countries, for example?” Naidoo asked.

“They’re not going to sign it. And to that we find answers in the landmine treaty. Up to today, the United States, Russia and China have not signed the Landmine treaty. But once the treaty was signed, the social license to continue as business as usual was taken away. And you saw a drastic change.”

Note: This article is brought to you by IPS Noram in collaboration with INPS Japan and Soka Gakkai International in consultative status with ECOSOC.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Excerpt:

By External Source
Nov 18 2025 (IPS)

 
I greet the particular Churches of the Global South gathered at the Amazonian Museum of Belém, joining the prophetic voice of my brother Cardinals who have taken part in COP 30, telling the world with words and gestures that the Amazon region remains a living symbol of creation with an urgent need for care.

You chose hope and action over despair, building a global community that works together. This has delivered progress, but not enough. Hope and determination must be renewed, not only in words and aspirations, but also in concrete actions.

The creation is crying out in floods, droughts, storms and relentless heat. One in three people live in great vulnerability because of these climate changes. To them, climate change is not a distant threat, and to ignore these people is to deny our shared humanity. There is still time to keep the rise in global temperature below 1.5°C, but the window is closing. As stewards of God’s creation, we are called to act swiftly, with faith and prophecy, to protect the gift He entrusted to us.

The Paris Agreement has driven real progress and remains our strongest tool for protecting people and the planet. But we must be honest: it is not the Agreement that is failing, we are failing in our response. What is failing is the political will of some. True leadership means service, and support at a scale that will truly make a difference. Stronger climate actions will create stronger and fairer economic systems. Strong climate actions and policies, both are an investment in a more just and stable world.

We walk alongside scientists, leaders and pastors of every nation and creed. We are guardians of creation, not rivals for its spoils. Let us send a clear global signal together: nations standing in unwavering solidarity behind the Paris Agreement and behind climate cooperation.

Let this Amazonic Museum be remembered as the space where humanity chose cooperation over division and denial.

And may God bless all of you in your efforts to continue caring for God’s creation. In the name of the father, the son, and the holy spirit. Amen.

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

The closing ceremony held against the backdrop of the ancient Roman ruins, the Colosseum Credit: Community of Sant'Egidio

By Katsuhiro Asagiri
ROME / TOKYO, Nov 4 2025 (IPS)

In the shadow of Rome’s Colosseum — once a monument to imperial violence — religious leaders from across the world gathered this week to deliver a message that felt both ancient and urgent: peace must once again become humanity’s sacred duty.

Colosseo Credit: Kevin Lin, INPS Japan

The meeting concluded Tuesday evening with Pope Leo XIV presiding over a ceremony that was equal parts prayer service and political statement.

 

“War is never holy,” the pope said. “Only peace is holy — because it is willed by God.”

 
A Call for Moral Courage

Speaking beneath the Arch of Constantine, Pope Leo urged governments and believers alike to resist what he called “the arrogance of power.”

“The world thirsts for peace,” he said. “We cannot allow people to grow accustomed to war as a normal part of human history. Enough — this is the cry of the poor and the cry of the earth.”

Hirotsugu Terasaki, vice president of Soka Gakkai with Pope Leo XIV. Credit: Vatican News

They stood together in silence as candles were lit around the ancient amphitheater — small lights flickering against the stone, symbolic of a shared prayer for reconciliation.

Faith and Accountability

The pope’s speech drew a clear line between faith and political responsibility.

“Peace must be the priority of every policy,” he said. “God will hold accountable those who failed to seek peace — for every day, month and year of war.”

Those words, delivered as fighting continues in Ukraine and Gaza, carried a deliberate edge. The Vatican under Leo XIV has increasingly positioned itself as a moral counterweight to political paralysis on global crises — speaking of peace not as abstraction but as obligation.

Pope John Paul II Credit: Gregorini Demetrio, CC BY-SA 3.0

Lessons From Assisi

This year’s meeting marked nearly four decades since John Paul II convened the first interreligious gathering for peace in Assisi in 1986. Since then, the Sant’Egidio Community has maintained that dialogue among faiths can temper political divides.

“We have dared to speak of peace in a world that speaks the language of war,” said Marco Impagliazzo, the group’s president. “To close the paths of dialogue is madness. As Pope Francis said, the world suffocates without dialogue.”

Session on the Dignity of Life

Earlier Tuesday, Soka Gakkai delegation took part in Session 22 titled “Justice Does Not Kill: Abolishing the Death Penalty,” held at the Austrian Cultural Forum.

Professor Enza Pellecchia of the University of Pisa, representing Soka Gakkai, took the stage and spoke about the movement’s efforts to abolish the death penalty, referring to the words of its founder, President Daisaku Ikeda, from his dialogue with the British historian Dr. Arnold Toynbee.

“The sanctity of life cannot be judged by guilt or merit — all lives are equal. Therefore, no one has the right to take a life, even in the name of justice. Accepting the death penalty is a form of institutionalized violence that assigns different values to human life, and President Ikeda has described it as ‘a manifestation of the prevailing tendency in modern times to devalue life”.

Professor Enza Pellecchia of the University of Pisa, representing Soka Gakkai, delivering her speech during the Forum titled “Justice Does Not Kill: Abolishing the Death Penalty,” held at the Austrian Cultural Forum. Credit: Seikyo Shimbun

Professor Pellecchia said that President Ikeda’s humanistic philosophy deeply resonates with Pope Leo XIV’s recent statement that “one cannot claim to be pro-life while accepting the death penalty or any form of violence.” Both, she noted, confront the same moral error — the belief that some lives are expendable.

When Religion Refuses Silence

For decades, the Colosseum has hosted symbolic gatherings for peace. Yet this year’s ceremony, participants said, carried a sharper urgency. The wars in Europe and the Middle East, the displacement of millions, and rising authoritarianism have all given moral language new weight.

“Peace begins with the transformation of the human heart,” said Terasaki of SGI. “Interfaith cooperation is not symbolic — it’s a method for changing history.”

A Plea That Still Echoes

As night fell, the trumpeter Paolo Fresu performed a mournful solo. Children stepped forward to deliver a Peace Appeal to diplomats and officials — a reminder that the next generation will inherit the choices made now.

The pope’s final words were brief, almost whispered:

“God wants a world without war. He will free us from this evil.”

The candles continued to burn as the crowd dispersed — a fragile constellation of light against the ruins of Roman empire, and a quiet act of defiance in a world still learning to dare peace.

This article is brought to you by INPS Japan in collaboration with Soka Gakkai International, in consultative status with the UN’s Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC).

INPS Japan

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Kathmandu’s Singha Durbar in flames

By Jan Lundius
ROME, Oct 2 2025 (IPS)

In the Global South, where people under the age of 18 comprise more than 50 percent of the population, youth activism is increasing rapidly. Youngsters are more agile and volatile than older people, less restrained by family, prestige and work. However, many suffer from marginalisation, lack of employment, and poverty. Furthermore, insecurity and limited life experience make young people an easy target for manipulating and unscrupulous politicians, criminal networks, and religious fanatics.

Students and young citizens come together by using social media to make their presence felt and mount protests in public spaces. The role of new media technologies as an organising tool has led besieged authorities to ban online platforms, though imposed restrictions have rather than contain protests accelerated them.

Rebellious youth generally belong to the Gen Z, which refers to “digital native”, the first generation fully immersed in a digital world, with constant access to internet and social media. An upbringing that has shaped their world view, making them independent, pragmatic and focused on social impact.

South Asia has recently experienced massive protest movements involving crowds of young people. In July 2022, after an economic collapse in Sri Lanka, a rebellion forced its president to flee the country. In July 2024, upheavals ended the long rule of Sheikh Hasina in Bangladesh, and in September this year, violent protests in Nepal forced Prime Minister Khadga Oli’s government to resign.

Even though specific incidents triggered these upheavals, they were all due to long-term, shared grievances evolving from stark wealth gaps, rampant nepotism, and unlimited corruption. Above all, youngsters protested against members of powerful dynasties, favouring a wealthy and discredited political elite.

Sri Lankans were in 2022 faced with a galloping inflation, daily blackouts, as well as shortages of fuel, domestic gas, food, medicines, and essential imports. Amid massive desperation, huge crowds of mostly young people did on 25 March take to the streets under the slogan Aragalya, Struggle.

Political power had by then become embedded within the Rajapaksa dynasty. From 2005 to 2022, two brothers – Mahinda and Gotabaya Rajapaksa, had alternately shared the presidency and prime minister post, while another brother headed their political party; a fourth was speaker of the parliament, and other relatives occupied influential political positions.

While Gotabaya Rajapaksa served as defence minister, he was credited with ending the twenty-six-year-long civil war with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. After churches and luxury hotels in April 2019 had been targeted by ISIS-related suicide bombers, killing 270 people, Mahinda and Gotabaya Rajapaksa, who at the time were in opposition, accused the current government of leniency. When Gotabaya ran for the presidency the same year, he based his campaign on his record as a militant leader, embracing a Sinhalese-Buddhist nationalism inspired by his brother Mahinda’s ethno-nationalist rhetoric, favouring the Buddhist establishment. Gotabaya was elected with an overwhelming majority and six ministries were then headed by members of the Rajapaksa clan.

Most Aragalaya protesters considered their personal hardships to be a result of the mismanagement and corruption of the Rajapaksa-led government. They demanded that the president be deposed and a thorough “system change” brought about. After appointing an astute insider, Ranil Wickremesinghe, as acting president, Gotabaya Rajapaksa fled to Singapore. Wickremesinghe’s government refused to hold elections and persistently portrayed Aragalaya as a chaotic movement, captured by militants, fascists, and terrorists.

Several Aragalaya supporters were wary of being used by partisan or militant groups, particularly those with leftist ideologies which had a long history of organizing protests and strikes. One exception could have been the leftist National People’s Power (NPP), established in 2019. The 2024 elections, which Wickremesinghe had been forced to accept, was won by a NPP coalition lead by Anura Dissanayake.

So far, Dissanayake and his NPP coalition have not introduced any radical political or economic changes. They have largely continued the Wickremesinghe government’s economic and foreign policies, raising questions about the extent to which the NPP coalition is willing, or able, to depart from established governance patterns and deliver the systemic change that has been promised. Deep set divisions and ethnic-religious tensions continue to harass the nation and NPP is apparently trying to tread lightly to avoid stirring up any violent disaccord.

The same could be said about Bangladesh, where an interim government led by Nobel laureate Muhammad Yunus seems to be cautious not to cause any antagonistic violence. Yunus’ group of personal supporters and experts presides over a nation with a chilling rise in mob violence and political discord; women are often being targeted, as well as there are reports of attacks on religious minorities.

The formerly dictatorial, but secular and highly corrupt political party, the Awami League, has been banned and democratic elections are promised by the interim government in February 2026. Some are optimistic about democratic elections, described by Yunus as becoming the most “beautiful elections ever”. However, others are unsure if elections will actually be held within a political scenario where violence is a common-day affair.

In Bangladesh, it was a quota system for jobs that forced youngsters into the streets. It was mainly students who led the protests. Student politics had for several years been ferocious, especially since religious and political fractions used them as a mobilising force. Violent feuds within educational institutes had killed many and seriously hampered the academic atmosphere.

Student anger became unified through a common resentment of reserved positions in the Bangladesh Civil Service (BCS), a cherished field of government service. The reserved positions were destined to “freedom fighters, i.e. veterans from the 1971 liberation war, as well as their children and grandchildren. Protests erupted in full force on 1 July after the Supreme Court in June 2024 had reinstated a 30 percent quota reserved for veteran descendants, generally interpreted as an intent by the governing party to favour its traditional supporters.

Bangladesh became a sovereign nation in December 1971, after a war against Pakistan, which was supported by India. Sheik Mujibur Rahman was until his assassination in 1975 president and prime minister. Following further turmoil with counter coups, General Ziaur Rahman eventually took over as president; he was in May 1981 assassinated in yet another coup. Ziaur Rahman’s widow, Begum Khaleda Zia, served from 1991 to 1996 as the second female prime minster in the Muslim world (after the Pakistani Benazir Bhutto) and again between 2001 and 2006, when Bangladesh, according to the Corruption Perceptions Index was listed as the most corrupt country in the world. Following the end of her government’s term, a military-backed caretaker government charged Khaleda Zia and her two sons with corruption and in 2018 she was sentenced to 17 years in prison.

Sheikh Hasinah, daughter of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman was prime minister between 1996 and 2001, and again from 2009 to 2024, following several controversial elections. Her tenure as prime minister was marked by economic mismanagement, rampant corruption, leading to a rising foreign debt, increased inflation, youth unemployment, banking irregularities and an enormous wealth gap. The Financial Times reported that more than an estimated USD 200 billion was allegedly plundered from Bangladesh during Sheikh Hasinah’s time as prime minister, with a lot of these money ending up in countries such as the UK.

As the case had been in Sri Lanka and Bangladesh, several members of the Nepalese political elite considered themselves as privileged and not accountable, while favouring family members and supporters to syphon wealth from overprized building endeavours.

Khadga Prassad Oli, a communist who began his political career as “spokesman for the oppressed”, seemed to be unaware of the anger accumulating around him within a nation where some two thousand men and women daily left to look for livelihoods in other countries (remittances from Nepalis working abroad constitute a third of the country’s GDP). Of those who stayed behind, more than 80 percent work in the informal sector, while youth unemployment in the formal sector is more than 20 percent.

On 4 September this year, the government ordered authorities to block 26 social media platforms, including Facebook, X, YouTube, LinkedIn, Instagram, Reddit, Signal and Snapchat, for not complying with a deadline to register with the country’s ministry of communication. The measure was explained as a means to tackle fake news, hate speech, and online fraud.

By then, youngsters had with increasing anger accessed platforms where politicians’ children posted photos of their opulent existence, awash with designer clothes, luxury holidays, and lavish parties. The close down of all media platforms, except the Chinese TikTok, further inflamed the resentment of Nepalese youth.

Soon Kathmandu was burning – Singha Durbar, i.e. Nepal’s administrative headquarters; the health ministry; the parliament building; the Supreme Court; the presidential palace; the prime minister’s residence, offices of the governing communist party, and the Kathmandu Hilton, were all set ablaze.

Nepal, the oldest sovereign, and until 2008 only Hindu state in South Asia, was for 250 years, under a strict caste system, ruled by the Shah dynasty. After internal power struggles and murders within the “Royal House of Gorkha” the monarchy was abolished and it was only in 1990 that it had ceded partial power to political parties. After that, a series of failing civilian governments gave in 1996 rise to a “Maoist” insurgency, which took sixteen thousand lives.

The leader of that rebellion, Pushpa Kamal Dahal, was in 2008 elected prime minister. However, he and his erstwhile revolutionaries proved incapable of improving Nepalese living standards and soon indulged themselves in corruption. After the September Gen Z-led upheaval a caretaker Prime Minister has been appointed. Sushila Karki, has a good record after being Nepal’s first female Chief Justice, between 2016 and 2017.

While new leaders seem to have emerged in Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal, the general public is now asking itself if these recently arrived politicians will be more prudent, corruption free and restrained in controversial actions, than their predecessors.

Much of the outcome depends on the “big brother” in the area – The Republic of India, where millions of migrant workers from Nepal, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka reside and work. Indian democracy has, with all its shortcomings, been characterized by a collective political discourse in which concerns of a diversity of all Indians could find a space. However, under prime minister Modi we now witness the rise of Hindu nationalism, rooted in homogeneity and exclusion, questioning who really belongs in the Hindutva community, while marginalizing those who don’t, among them migrants, Muslims, and many others. A dangerous polarization that could worsen the situation in neighbouring countries, particularly considering the huge number of their emigrants being present in a country prone to discriminate against them, as well as forcing them back to a tumultuous situation in their countries of origin.

This is part 1 of an analysis of the connection between youth movements and political change, part 2 will analyse how youth-led revolutions have changed political scenarios globally.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Filippo Grandi, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, addresses the high-level conference of the General Assembly on the situation of Rohingya Muslims and other minorities in Myanmar. Credit: UN Photo/Manuel Elías

By Oritro Karim
UNITED NATIONS, Oct 1 2025 (IPS)

On September 30, the United Nations (UN) convened a high-level meeting on the situation of Rohingya Muslims and other minorities in Myanmar shortly following the end of the 80th session of the General Assembly (UNGA80). The conference was an opportunity to draw global attention once more to the Rohingya refugee situation with dialogue from UN officials, world representatives and civil society organizations.

Since the 2017 military crackdown on the rights and citizenship of Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar, over one million refugees have fled to Bangladesh, most settling in Cox’s Bazar which became the world’s largest refugee camp. Despite repeated repatriation efforts by the Bangladeshi government, ongoing insecurity in Myanmar makes a safe return impossible, with refugees still at risk of persecution and discrimination.

UN Secretary-General António Guterres noted that Rohingya Muslims and minorities face widespread insecurity and discrimination, especially in Rakhine State. “Minorities in Myanmar have endured decades of exclusion, abuse and violence,” Chef de Cabinet Courtenay Rattray said, delivering Guterres’ statement on his behalf. “The Rohingya have been stripped of their right to citizenship, targeted by hate speech, terrorized with deadly force and destruction, confined to displacement camps in Myanmar, with severely limited freedom of movement and little access to education and health services.”

Rattray added that minorities are routinely subjected to forced displacement, conscription, aerial attacks, and extrajudicial killings. Sexual and gender-based violence remain pervasive, with women and girls facing heightened risks of trafficking, child marriage, and other forms of exploitation.

With humanitarian aid budgets shrinking and conflict escalating in Myanmar, delegates discussed mechanisms to ensure the protection of Rohingya refugees and minorities, as well as strategies to facilitate a safe and dignified return home. Many speakers urged for increased accountability measures, in hopes of addressing the root causes of insecurity in Myanmar and ending the cycle of impunity.

“To create a conducive environment for repatriation, first and foremost we must end this military dictatorship and its atrocities against civilians, and we all need to double every effort to build trust and unity among us,” said Ambassador Kyaw Moe Tun, Permanent Representative of Myanmar to the UN. “Resolving the situation of Rohingya Muslims and Other Minorities in Myanmar will not be possible unless we address the root cause. We can yield results only by acting together to end the military dictatorship, its unlawful coup, and its culture of impunity.”

Numerous member state and civil society representatives also emphasized the need for stronger accountability measures, warning of significant risks to regional stability. Stavros Lambrinidis, Ambassador of the European Union (EU) to the UN, noted that tensions have grown considerably between refugees and host communities, with minors often joining armed groups, risking further violence in the region.

“This crisis is not only a Myanmar crisis,” said Nabhit Kapur, the Permanent Observer of the Pan-African Intergovernmental Agency for Water and Sanitation in Africa (WSA) to the UN. “Its implications stretch far beyond borders, affecting regional peace, stability, and trust in the very foundations of multilateralism…The longer uncertainty prevails, the greater the risk of radicalization, human trafficking, and destabilization across the region.”

Several speakers also underscored the urgency of increased funding, particularly for essential services such as food assistance, protection, and education, which are vital in enabling a dignified return to Myanmar. The World Food Programme (WFP) warned that if additional funding is not secured soon, Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh risk falling into acute food insecurity, with monthly food rations potentially being reduced to just USD 6 per person.

Dylan Winder, a representative of the International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC), informed the room about conditions in the Cox’s Bazar settlement, describing the situation as “fragile” and entirely dependent on humanitarian assistance. “Families continue to live in shelters beyond capacity and are exposed to disasters. Protection and security risks are serious and growing. And the hard truth is that shrinking funding is accelerating these risks—threatening food rations, healthcare, including maternal and child health, and water and sanitation services—driving disease, violence, and trafficking, and pushing families toward dangerous coping strategies.”

Bangladesh’s Chief Advisor, Muhammad Yunus, stressed that Bangladesh cannot bear this burden alone as it already faces the challenge of supporting a densely populated nation and cannot “afford to allow employment of Rohingyas inside Bangladesh”. Refugees continue to face severe shortages of resources along with alongside reoccurring security challenges, such as clashes with host communities. “We are forced to bear huge financial, social and environmental costs. Criminal activities, including narco-flows into Bangladesh through Rakhine, threaten our social fabric,” Yunus said.

Speakers also emphasized the need for a comprehensive political framework that guarantees minority rights and citizenship, and fosters inclusion, particularly for women and children—the most vulnerable among the persecuted population.With Rohingya Muslims rendered stateless and largely silenced, many underscored the urgency of ensuring their meaningful representation in decisions that will shape their future.

“The 2021 military coup halted democratic aspirations of Myanmar’s people and the Rohingya’s hopes to participate in shaping Myanmar’s future,” said the Ambassador for International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA) to the UN. “The Rohingya crisis is not only a humanitarian and human rights crisis; it is a crisis of democracy and inclusion…Without inclusion, there can be no reconciliation; without democracy, there can be no justice.”

While this conference was meant to center the direct perspectives of Rohingya refugees from the camps, very few of the speakers were refugees or came from the camps. The conference did not include statements from Rohingya refugees currently living in the camps. In previous years, Bangladesh and the UN had sponsored trips for Rohingya refugees to represent themselves in discussions that could shape their own futures. This year, there were none, with Bangladeshi officials citing difficulty in obtaining clearance and security concerns.

“Peace in Myanmar rests on the recognition that the Rohingya are equal members of Burmese society, equally deserving of education, citizenship, human rights and justice,” said the Representative of the Independent Diplomat to the UN. “True action has been lacking. As diplomatic experts and activists have convened in these halls, the Rohingya have remained stateless, displaced, and denied their own fundamental rights. The gap between our stated principles and our collective responsibility has allowed atrocities to continue with impunity and it deepens the suffering of far too many people.”

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau