Credit: HuyNguyenSG/iStock by Getty Images. Source: IMF

By Kristalina Georgieva
WASHINGTON DC, Jun 17 2026 (IPS)

More than three months into the war in the Middle East, the global economy appears to be holding up. Commodity prices, inflation and expectations for it, and financial conditions have all been impacted—but not yet in ways that signal a global slowdown. And we have seen strong economic momentum in the world’s biggest economies, the United States and China.

But an overall resilient global picture masks significant disparities. Even among advanced economies, some countries and communities have been harder hit. And in Africa, the negative impacts are more conspicuous. Meanwhile, with the prolonged closure of the Strait of Hormuz and infrastructure in the Middle East damaged by the fighting, uncertainty and risks remain high.

We will provide an updated analysis of this global picture on July 8, in our next World Economic Outlook Update.

Drivers of global resilience so far

At the conflict’s outset, our immediate concern was the impact on energy prices and knock-on effects on inflation. And they have been considerable. Oil prices are 30 percent higher than pre-war levels. Yet that is lower than was seen earlier in the conflict, despite the straits’ prolonged closure.

Some countries, such as China, have been able—for now—to cushion the disruption by tapping deep oil reserves. This has also helped with demand pressures in otherwise hard-hit Asia. Increased production and refinery utilization outside the Gulf, although not sufficient to offset the shock, have also contained the increase in oil prices. In addition, actions to dampen demand or limit the price passthrough have mitigated the impact so far. But, here too, there are limits to how long countries can manage the higher budgetary costs and higher external financing requirements.

In many economies, higher oil prices are nonetheless contributing to a pickup in headline inflation. That is concerning—but not the full story. It is also important to consider whether people and businesses expect a more persistent erosion of their purchasing power. And these medium-term expectations generally remain well anchored. That’s an encouraging sign of confidence in central banks’ commitment to price stability.

Financial markets have also proven resilient. Government bond yields have climbed significantly since the war began, but risk assets have rallied on strong earnings, and we see little evidence of a broader flight to safety. By historical standards, financial conditions remain accommodative.

Technology is another bright spot. Strong technology-related investment—particularly in artificial intelligence and data centers—has been a driving force in the countries where economic momentum is holding up. The United States is benefiting from this global technology cycle, as are economies in Asia that have seen stronger technology exports. Most countries, however, are yet to feel the productivity and growth impact of technology, leading to concerns about further economic divergence.

To sum up, the combination of economic resilience and technological advancements have helped to cushion the impact of the energy supply shock on growth at the global level and there have been bright spots within regions. But there are countries that are harder hit, largely depending on geography, degree of energy dependence, and available policy space.

Hardest hit

For war impacts, proximity matters. Oil exporters around the Gulf that are directly affected by the war face steep downward revisions to growth this year, with five out of eight countries seeing outright contractions.

For Europe, which is heavily dependent on imported oil and gas, higher energy prices are weighing on growth and putting upward pressure on inflation, with the ECB recently raising interest rates.

Emerging market economies in Asia are also bearing the brunt—with the relatively higher oil and gas intensity of the economies in the region. They face retail gasoline prices that have increased 40 percent since the war began, while rising government bond yields and currency depreciation and capital outflow pressures have amplified the costs of the shock.

Yet, it is the countries that combine heavy reliance on energy imports with limited policy space that are especially hard-hit.

The strain is especially visible in Africa, where many of these factors are at play. For countries in the region that rely heavily on imports, rising costs are worsening external balances and increasing budgetary pressures—and financing needs.

Several African countries have been managing fuel shortages—including Ethiopia, Malawi, and Zambia—and most are feeling the pain of sharp fuel price increases. In countries such as Lesotho, Rwanda, and Tanzania, gasoline prices have increased by about half since the onset of the war.

Higher energy prices have also driven up fertilizer and food costs, increasing the risk of food insecurity. If disruptions persist, farmers in many low-income countries may struggle. That in turn may further fuel inflation for months to come.

Needed: policy discipline and agility

As we have said before, much depends on the duration and intensity of the energy supply shock. The sooner it is resolved, the better—especially as supply will take time to recover given the significant infrastructure damage—and Sunday’s ceasefire announcement is welcome. But should the conflict or disruptions intensify, this is a clear risk to global growth.

This continued high uncertainty underscores the need for all policymakers to be agile and disciplined. Maintaining price stability is essential. Already, some central banks have begun to tighten to keep inflation expectations anchored.

With borrowing costs rising, fiscal discipline is equally important. Price caps, subsidies and similar interventions may be popular, but they are costly. Fiscal responses should be targeted, temporary, preserve price signals, and well-sequenced to protect the vulnerable without undermining public finances.

This is even more important given the need to make room for the fiscal costs of ensuring that AI-driven growth translates into shared prosperity. That includes both the fiscal costs to address new vulnerabilities, as well as investing in technology and people to ensure that emerging and developing economies are not left behind.

Supporting affected members

While there is much our members can do to cushion the impact of the war, they shouldn’t have to go it alone. The Fund remains as committed as ever to helping our member countries navigate this period of heightened uncertainty. Just as the effects vary across countries and regions, our support is tailored to meet the differentiated needs of our members.

For now, most member countries are asking for clear, candid policy guidance rather than financial support. And we have duly responded—providing tailored policy advice and capacity development. While the risks have not yet receded, embracing the right policies will help provide some relief.

For those countries that need financial support, we are stepping up. We are working with several countries and will soon present to our Executive Board proposals to adjust existing programs in response to the shock. The Gambia has requested an augmentation and program extension. Burkina Faso has reached staff-level agreement on a funding increase to address higher external financing needs. In Ethiopia, we aim to bring forward financing to this year, while we have initiated discussions on a new program with Malawi. Bangladesh also has requested a new program.

That the global economy is so far weathering the shock is cause for reassurance—but not complacency. The IMF remains on high alert. We are also deeply mindful of the economic damage some of our members are already suffering. We will work with them to manage the shock and limit its negative impacts, especially on the vulnerable. Our commitment to our membership is unwavering.

Kristalina Georgieva has been serving as Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund since October 1, 2019. She began her second term on October 1, 2024.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

 
CIVICUS discusses a proposed United Nations (UN) tax treaty with Jenny Ricks, General Secretary of Fight Inequality Alliance, a global movement that organises to counter the concentration of power and wealth in the hands of a small elite.

Jenny Ricks

Why do we need a global tax treaty, and what would an ambitious one look like?

Every year, trillions of dollars are drained from public services through tax avoidance, tax havens and sweetheart deals negotiated by and for the wealthiest corporations and people on the planet. This is a system designed by a powerful few, and it’s working exactly as intended. Countries across the global majority are losing money they urgently need for climate adaptation, hospitals and schools while billionaires park fortunes in jurisdictions that ask no questions.

An ambitious treaty must set minimum effective tax rates on corporate profits and extreme wealth, make automatic information sharing a baseline rather than an aspiration, and put in place binding commitments rather than voluntary frameworks that elites can walk away from when the political heat rises. The goal has to be redistribution at scale. Anything less is rearranging deck chairs on a sinking ship.

How does the UN Convention compare to the OECD’s approach, and where might it fall short?

The OECD process was built by rich countries, for rich countries. The global majority had only observer status in negotiations that fundamentally shaped their economic futures. That’s the original sin of the existing framework and no amount of technical refinement changes the underlying power imbalance baked into it.

The UN Convention changes the venue and potentially changes the power balance. When every country has a voice and a vote, the interests of the majority of the world’s people have at least a fighting chance of being reflected in the outcome.

The shortcomings are real, though. Ambition gets negotiated down. Large economies drag their feet, threaten opt-outs or simply refuse to ratify. The convention’s potential is significant, but potential and outcome are very different things, and we have seen promising processes hollowed out before. Without a fundamental rethinking of the international system, including the UN itself, to put power firmly in the hands of the global majority, enforcement will remain elusive.

Who’s pushing the treaty forward, and who’s standing in the way?

States with the most to gain have shown the most political courage, while those that have profited most from the existing architecture are throwing sand in the gears. This pattern is not coincidental. Governments protecting the interests of their wealthiest people and most powerful corporations are the obstacle. The barriers are political, rooted in elite self-interest, and naming that clearly matters.

The negotiations are ongoing and fast-moving. For the latest developments, the Tax Justice Network database is the best place to look.

How is civil society influencing the treaty process?

The movement to tax the super-rich has to be built from the national to the global level. Movements shape what’s considered possible before politicians decide what’s acceptable. When we mobilise people in Kenya, Malaysia and Peru, in the streets and in people’s assemblies, we change the political cost calculation for decision-makers domestically and internationally. We demonstrate that there’s a constituency demanding this change, that it’s a matter of survival for millions of families, not an abstraction debated in Geneva conference rooms.

Fight Inequality Alliance and our allies have worked to surface frontline voices and lived experience in spaces that tend to run on position papers and spreadsheets. We have supported national alliances to bring their governments to the table with clear demands. We have made visible who benefits from the status quo, and that visibility increases accountability. Civil society doesn’t win these fights alone, but without sustained pressure from organised movements, the political space to win them simply doesn’t open.

What do civil society and states need to do to ensure equitable global taxation?

States that have pushed hardest for an ambitious convention must hold firm. Dilution always comes in the final stages, when powerful interests feel threatened. They should ratify promptly, implement genuinely and resist pressure from wealthier governments to hollow out enforcement mechanisms.

For civil society, the task is sustained pressure and political education. People need to understand the connection between tax justice and the hospital that closed, the school that’s crumbling, the debt that their governments cannot escape. That connection is real and it’s political, and once people see it, they don’t unsee it. That’s how movements grow and how the terms of debate shift. We need more of that, faster and bigger, and we need organisations with resources and reach to invest in building those connections alongside us, rather than commenting on the process from a distance.

GET IN TOUCH
Website
Facebook
Instagram
LinkedIn
Twitter
Jenny Ricks/LinkedIn

SEE ALSO
Global governance: power politics tests global rules CIVICUS | State of Civil Society Report 2026
UN at 80: a struggle for renewal in a time of crises CIVICUS Lens 19.Sep.2025
Trillions at stake in quest for tax justice CIVICUS Lens 31.Mar.2025

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

In the human body, connective tissue rarely gets the attention given to the heart, lungs or brain. But without it, even the strongest organs cannot function as a system. It binds, supports and connects a healthy body.

Fiscal systems work in a similar way.

Warren Krafchik

But they are not enough.

The fiscal crisis is already here, and so is the crisis of trust around it. As governments face harder choices over debt, climate costs, slower growth, inequality and public investment, the challenge is no longer simply to balance the books. It is to make fiscal choices more accountable, equitable and trusted by the public.

That cannot be achieved by strengthening finance ministries or other individual institutions one by one. It requires investing in the connective tissue between these institutions: the relationships among legislatures, auditors, courts, civil society, journalists, reformers inside government and citizens that support legitimacy and effective scrutiny.

Case in point: Brazil, Indonesia and South Africa have all strengthened public finance institutions in important ways, yet still face deep challenges around oversight, legitimacy and equity, according to the synthesis paper, Strengthening Fiscal Ecosystems for Accountability and Equity. In each country, formal systems may look strong on paper, but fiscal decisions can still be shaped by political capture, weak scrutiny and unequal access to power.

The reason is that public finance is not simply a technical exercise. It is a political one. Budgets determine who gets health care, education, infrastructure, climate protection and social support. Tax systems determine who contributes and who is spared. Debt decisions can bind future generations. Fiscal choices are among the clearest expressions of a government’s priorities.

Paolo de Renzio

Accountability happens when those institutions are connected to one another and are able to collaborate. It happens when civic actors can engage them, when media can investigate, when courts can intervene where necessary, when legislatures can scrutinize executive decisions, and when public pressure can turn information into consequences.

Such a “fiscal ecosystem” includes ministries of finance, legislatures, supreme audit institutions, courts, civil society organizations, journalists, reformers inside government, social movements, citizens and the relationships among them. It also includes the informal realities that shape how power actually operates, such as party bargains, patronage networks, institutional rivalries, elite coalitions and unequal access to decision-makers.

This gap between formal rules and real power is where many fiscal reforms fall short. A country may have a budget law that clearly defines the role of parliament, but legislators may lack the independence or capacity to challenge executive choices. A supreme audit institution may produce strong reports, but those findings may go nowhere if the executive does not act on them. Civil society organizations may uncover misuse of public funds, but struggle to get a response from those with the power to impose sanctions.

Brazil, Indonesia and South Africa each followed different reform paths. But across all three cases, especially during crises, accountability often depended not on a single institution performing perfectly, but on formal and informal collaborations forming across the fiscal ecosystem. Auditors worked with communities. Media investigations collected evidence and amplified public pressure. Courts intervened when other institutions fell short. Reformers inside and outside the state found ways to connect scrutiny with action.

These efforts are often fragile. They are also essential.

The global public finance community should draw a clear conclusion. The next phase of fiscal reform must move beyond an institution-by-institution approach, and invest in the relationships, coalitions and channels that connect oversight actors and allow accountability to take root.

For international financial institutions, development agencies and technical assistance providers, this means recognizing that fiscal legitimacy cannot be built through executive capacity alone. Supporting ministries of finance remains important, but it should be matched by greater attention to the institutions, inside and outside government, and the connections between them that balance fiscal power.

For ministries of finance, it means supporting connected oversight systems by responding in a timely way to legislature and audit processes and recommendations and creating additional formal spaces for civil society organizations and communities to contribute to policy choices and implementation. Oversight bodies need pathways for their actions to matter.

For civil society and media, it means ensuring that transparency is not treated as the end goal but as a starting point. Public access to fiscal information is only powerful when citizens, journalists and civic actors have the resources, protections and channels needed to use it.

For philanthropy, the implication is especially urgent. Too much support for accountability work remains fragmented by institution, sector or issue area. Funders have a critical opportunity to invest in the connective tissue executive, oversight, and civic actors that makes fiscal accountability possible. That means supporting civic actors who can follow public money, connect budget decisions to lived experience, work with the ministries of finance and oversight institutions and help communities demand answers when public resources are at risk.

Fiscal reform must therefore be understood as a democratic project, not simply a managerial one. Strong finance ministries are necessary. But they cannot carry the burden of legitimacy alone. If governments want citizens to accept difficult trade-offs, they must build systems where people can see how decisions are made, contribute to those decisions, challenge abuses of power and trust that public resources are being used in the public interest.

The future of fiscal reform will not be won by strengthening one institution at a time. It will depend on building fiscal accountability ecosystems strong enough to keep public finance connected to the public good.

Warren Krafchik is a Public Finance Consultant at the Trust, Accountability and Inclusion Collaborative and Co-lead of the Strengthening Fiscal Ecosystems project.

Paolo de Renzio is a Senior Lecturer at the Brazilian School of Public and Business Administration of Fundação Getúlio Vargas in Rio de Janeiro, and Co-lead of the Strengthening Fiscal Ecosystems project.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

A group of children sit near a garden in Tamasgo Primary, in Burkina Faso, which is one of the most climate-vulnerable countries in the world. Credit: UNICEF Office in Burkina Faso

By Oritro Karim
UNITED NATIONS, Jun 16 2026 (IPS)

A new report from the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) highlights the vast, overlapping climate threats affecting children worldwide, which is leaving them increasingly vulnerable to escalating risks across health, security, and education.

The report, Children’s Climate Risk Report, emphasizes that while these risks are most pronounced in heavily vulnerable regions in the Global South—such as South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa—nearly half of the world’s children are exposed to at least three climate hazards, with some exposed to as many as six at once.

“Across the globe, millions of children are now facing multiple climate threats without the necessary services to cope,” said UNICEF Executive Director Catherine Russell. “They are experiencing extreme heat that causes heatstroke and dehydration. Their homes and schools are being destroyed by storms and floods. Devastating droughts are limiting their access to food and water. And in many cases, the intensity of these hazards is increasing with each passing year.”

“We must invest more in adapting essential services to the impact of climate change,” Russell added. “Through political will, partnerships, and collaboration with young people, the case studies in this report prove that progress is possible. But the scale and ambition of action must be rapidly accelerated to ensure that every child is protected from climate impacts.”

According to UNICEF’s findings, nearly every child globally is now affected by air pollution. Additionally, over 296 million children live in areas that are exposed to a dangerous combination of prolonged drought, extreme heat, and heatwaves, while another 115 million simultaneously face droughts, extreme heat, and tropical storms.

The agency stresses that these risks often overlap across multiple regions, noting that riverine and coastal floods, fires, and sand and dust storms have caused widespread displacement, disruptions to livelihoods and schooling, the spread of infectious diseases, or various forms of health and food insecurity.

Nowhere are the consequences of these overlapping threats more evident than in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia, which have been described by climate experts as the two most climate-vulnerable regions in the world. These regions are at a heightened risk primarily due to high environmental exposure and a limited capacity to respond. The resulting shocks overwhelm local health systems, cripple fragile infrastructure, and leave entire communities deprived of basic, lifesaving services.

The report notes that over 4 million children in the Sahel region are exposed to heatwaves, extreme heat, and sand and dust storms. Meanwhile, South Asian countries like Bangladesh, Myanmar and Pakistan, face more hazards at once and at higher intensities than anywhere else in the world.

“While some countries may face a single devastating event, such as a tropical storm that can wipe out an entire island, many countries in Asia are dealing with a combination of threats, from floods and storms to extreme heat,” Rohini Sampoornam Swaminathan, UNICEF Statistics and Monitoring Manager, tells Inter Press Service. “Children may cope with one or two shocks, but after three, four or five, families’ ability to respond becomes severely strained. Moreover, risk is not only about exposure to hazards, but it is also about the availability and accessibility of essential services. For children without reliable access to health care, nutrition, or water and sanitation, even a moderate flood or heatwave can become life‑threatening.”

On 20 January 2026, an aerial view of the flooded Xai Xai village after extreme rainfall in Gaza Province, Mozambique. Credit: UNICEF/Guy Taylor

According to the report, in 2024, approximately 634 million children lacked access to safe drinking water, over 1 billion lacked access to sanitation services, and 489 million lacked access to basic hygiene services. Currently, nearly 160 million children live in areas where water systems are severely strained, and droughts are extremely pronounced, while another 270 million children live in flood-prone zones where less than half of the population has access to adequate sanitation.

As a result, the World Health Organization (WHO) projects that there could be over 250,000 additional yearly deaths by the 2030s from malaria, diarrhoea, heat stress, and undernutrition. These consequences are dire for children, particularly those living in fragile contexts where health systems and local infrastructures are strained.

In Pakistan, children face extreme vulnerability due to glacial melt and erratic rainfall patterns, which frequently trigger large-scale flooding. The historic 2022 floods affected over 33 million people—roughly half of whom were children—and stripped more than 5.4 million people of access to clean water, leaving them at a heightened risk of contracting infectious diseases and waterborne illnesses. This has been compounded by frequent heatwaves and prolonged droughts, with temperatures routinely exceeding 48 degrees Celsius, or 118.4 degrees Fahrenheit, which have caused high rates of severe dehydration and acute malnutrition, as a result of decimated crop yields.

Without urgent intervention, UNICEF projects that an additional 28 million children globally could experience acute malnutrition and stunted growth by 2050. In sub-Saharan Africa alone, approximately 10 million more children are expected to suffer from stunted growth by 2050. Over the last few years, increasingly frequent and destructive climate shocks have devastated food systems around the world, leaving roughly 66 percent of children under five—approximately 440 million—to live in severe food poverty.

Additionally, climate shocks are increasingly stripping children of their education, with UNICEF recording nearly 242 million students across 85 countries and territories who have their education disrupted by climate-induced hazards in 2024 alone. The agency has also recorded rising rates of school closures, absenteeism, and worsened school performance. Swaminathan noted that when classrooms become too hot, children struggle to concentrate, learn and stay engaged.

“Heat increases dehydration, fatigue and absenteeism, especially in schools without cooling, shade or reliable water,” she added. “As temperatures rise, schools are also closing more often. While closures protect children’s health, they expose how unprepared many education systems are for a hotter world. When children lose learning, societies lose potential. Repeated disruptions affect education outcomes, future earnings and economic growth, while deepening inequalities.”

It is estimated that disrupted education across low- and middle-income countries could yield future economic losses of up to USD 11 trillion in lifetime earnings. The report further notes that establishing climate-resilient education systems is crucial in preventing these losses and protecting children from facing adverse mental health impacts and deepened social and economic inequalities.

Furthermore, volatile climate shocks around the world continue to displace entire communities and push millions of children into insecurity. Between 2016 and 2023, UNICEF recorded over 62 million internal displacements of children as a result of climate-induced hazards—or roughly 21,000 child displacements per day.

“When families are forced to move because of climate shocks, children face heightened risks of violence, exploitation and family separation, both during the journey and in temporary settlements. These risks increase when displacement is sudden, support networks collapse, and protection systems are overwhelmed,” said Swaminathan. “Climate-related displacement acts as a threat multiplier. It weakens livelihoods, strains fragile services and deepens existing tensions.”

Child protection services around the world have been pushed to the brink of collapse as a result of the vast scale of needs triggered by climate-induced displacement. This strain has been linked to a significant rise in violence, exploitation, abuse, and childhood trauma, with many families resorting to negative coping mechanisms such as child labour and child marriage.

According to UNICEF estimates, rates of child labour have surged in recent years, particularly in areas with agriculture-dependent economies, where roughly 70 percent of this exploitation can be found. Additionally, communities frequently turn to child marriage to secure short-term financial stability following severe climate shocks. The consequences are particularly dire for girls who are married before the age of 18, who face a significantly higher risk of domestic violence, alongside severely compromised health and economic outcomes compared to those who marry later in life.

To accelerate climate action and protect millions of children from these escalating risks, UNICEF is urging global leaders and the private sector to prioritize investments in renewable energy, underscoring that this is a critical first step in reducing the intensity of climate shocks. Additionally, the agency stresses the importance of integrating climate-resilient schools, water systems, and healthcare facilities into national emergency plans and expanding climate education to ensure that the next generation has a voice in decisions that affect their lives.

“UNICEF’s message is clear: invest in children’s resilience, especially the most vulnerable. Invest in the communities they live in and the social services they depend on, and ensure these services continue to function during and after climate shocks,” said Swaminathan. “The climate crisis is a child rights crisis. We know where children are at risk and what they face. Now we must act.”

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

The Russian state has, through legislation and stigmatising rhetoric, systematically worked to isolate the LGBTQ+ community. Graphic: IPS

By Ed Holt
BRATISLAVA, Jun 16 2026 (IPS)

LGBTQ+ people in Russia are being forced to increasingly use self-censoring strategies in their daily lives as they struggle with systemic vulnerability, one of the largest surveys of the LGBTQ+ community in the country has shown.

The latest annual survey of more than 6,000 people across Russia by the Coming Out and Sphere Foundation organisations showed that, in 2025, the situation for the community had neither improved nor significantly worsened.

But it showed a reinforcement of existing adaptive strategies among LGBTQ+ people, including selective approaches to coming out and avoidance of situations in which their gender identity or sexual orientation could be revealed.

There was also an increase in some forms of abuse, particularly in online spaces, and threats of violence, extortion, denunciation, and pressure from close circles continued to contribute significantly to the everyday vulnerability of LGBTQ+ people.

The groups say the findings reinforce the perception that LGBTQ+ people in Russia – where a series of repressive laws demonising and persecuting the community – are likely to face persistently high levels of vulnerability and threats to their safety, health, and quality of life for some time to come as they come under attack simply for being who they are.

“Our data shows that repression of LGBTQ+ people has moved from persecution for specific actions to persecution for their identity, for who a person is, not what they do. There are more and more legal cases against people who are living their lives, not doing anything against the government or trying to promote human rights,” Denis Oleinik, Executive Director at Coming Out, told IPS.

“What we have seen in 2025 is a “normalisation” or “routinisation” of catastrophe. LGBTQ+ people now just live with [the situation], with these things happening. It’s as if this has become normal life. It’s absolutely horrible,” he added.

Russia’s LGBTQ+ community has faced increasing discrimination and marginalisation for more than a decade.

While there has historically been a degree of anti-LGBTQ+ sentiment in Russian society, this has deepened significantly with the introduction of a series of laws and increasingly hostile government policies against the community.

In 2013, not long after Vladimir Putin had returned to power as president, a law was implemented banning “the propaganda of non-traditional sexual relations” to anyone under the age of 18.

The start of what critics say has been a decade-long campaign by the Kremlin to marginalise and vilify the LGBTQ+ community in the country, the law was extended in 2022 to cover all public information or activities supporting LGBTQ+ rights or displaying non-heterosexual orientation, regardless of age.

A ban on same-sex marriage was also written into the constitution, and in 2023, legislation was passed banning transgender people from officially or medically changing their gender.

The same year also saw a ruling by the Supreme Court, which outlawed the non-existent ‘international LGBT movement’, declaring it ‘extremist’ – allowing people to be fined or prosecuted for anything that could be construed as promoting “non-traditional sexual relations”.

At the same time, homophobic political discourse has become increasingly normalised, as the Kremlin has looked to promote ‘traditional family values’ in society and cast LGBTQ+ activism as a product of a degenerate West and a threat to Russia.

This has fuelled a growingly virulent and often violent rejection of LGBTQ+ people in large parts of society and has left many in the community fearing for their physical and mental health.

Grigory*, an LGBTQ+ student from a major city in Russia, said they were selective in revealing their sexuality and gender identity and that while they do not live in permanent fear of physical attacks, they have adjusted their behaviour to avoid certain locations.

“Sometimes in the evenings I avoid certain places because I could be considered stereotypically gay, perhaps because of my voice or the way I walk. I don’t hide my sexuality in public, but I don’t manifest it either,” they said, adding that this was easier for them than for some other members of the LGBTQ+ community.

“Transgender people suffer the worst problems. It must be very hard for someone to be transgender in Russia. They are so brave and strong. I’m astonished they can keep going,” they said.

The Coming Out and Sphere Foundation showed the situation for transgender people in the vast majority of indicators for quality of life, including specific measures of discrimination and well-being, was worse than for other members of the LGBTQ+ community. Notably, they were significantly more likely to face physical threats and experience actual physical violence, including sexual and domestic violence, more frequently than other LGBTQ+ people.

“A lot of trans people right now live their whole lives at home without even going outside to the shops if they have access to courier services or some relatives or friends who can help them buy what they need. We’re seeing this more and more,” said Oleinik.

Grigory said they felt, along with many others in the community, if not fear of physical attacks, a specific sense of aggression towards them.

“I feel it indirectly. It comes through government narratives in the media and in the public sphere, or in something an acquaintance might say. Queerphobia in Russia is mainly government-induced. Of course it existed before all these awful laws, but it wasn’t that strong. The laws have made it much worse,” they said.

LGBTQ+ rights campaigners say the patterns of behaviour among the community in Russia described in the report are unsurprising given the years of growing repression against them.

“When marginalisation and criminalisation on any grounds are a long-term feature of daily life, people develop ways of managing their daily exposure to harm,” Anastasia Smirnova, Deputy Director and Director of Programmes at rights group ILGA-Europe, told IPS.

She added, though, that LGBTQ+ people in Russia were facing a very specific challenge, as the Russian state has, through increasingly harsh legislation and stigmatising rhetoric, systematically worked to isolate LGBTQ+ human rights defenders and then LGBTQ+ people from each other and from everyone around them as part of a broader dismantling of the conditions for free association and dissent.

“This is what makes it different from social prejudice: it is not a reflection of society, it is a project of the state, and its target is civic life. For many people living through this, the daily acts of self-censorship described in the report are the lived reality of that project,” Smirnova said.

The potential harms of such actions on individuals and the wider community are severe, with impacts on both mental and physical health as individuals are left isolated and in some cases afraid to access healthcare.

“The impact on children is particularly severe. State propaganda targeting schools, the absence of age-appropriate relationship and sex education, and the climate of fear surrounding LGBTI topics leave young people exposed to extreme harm and isolation, especially children who are themselves LGBTI or have LGBTI family members, but also any child who might be perceived as LGBTI,” said Smirnova.

While the report did not show a significant deterioration in a number of indicators compared to previous years – in fact there was a slight improvement in some areas – its authors warn this could be misleading, highlighting that the report relied on the willingness of respondents to “share sensitive information in an increasingly oppressive environment” and that real levels of discrimination and violence could be higher.

Whatever the true levels of discrimination against the community are in Russia, many people are suffering gravely in the current environment.

Grigory said they are currently in therapy, partly to help them deal with the challenges of being LGBTQ+ in Russia.

They said that among the community, “thoughts of killing oneself and suicide attempts are pretty common.”

LGBTQ+ people and activists in touch or working directly with members of the community who spoke to IPS said substance abuse, or self-medication through unsupervised use of anti-depressants, was not uncommon either.

Trying to get help for such problems is difficult though amid mistrust of state health institutions because of widespread homo- and transphobia and concerns over staff potentially breaching patient confidentiality about sexuality.

As the pressure on LGBTQ+ people continues, many feel they have had no choice but to leave the country.

The annual report included responses from hundreds of people who had emigrated, both in 2025 and in the last few years before that.

Severe anxiety and psychological discomfort were the most commonly cited reasons for emigration (66%), while other major reasons included intensified censorship (59%), personal safety risk (57%), and increased homophobia and transphobia in Russian society (57%).

Tellingly, the majority of participants who had emigrated (63%) did not consider returning to Russia an option – a rise of 8 percentage points on the previous year.

This is perhaps unsurprising, given that many in the community see little or no prospect of the situation in Russia improving for many years.

“Many things have changed in the last few years, not just in Russia but all around the world – the far right is winning everywhere, and LGBTQ rights are under attack all over the world. I’m not expecting anything good to happen inside Russia in the next five to ten years,” said Oleinik.

But others say that despite, or perhaps because of, the report’s findings, there is an even greater need now for LGBTQ+ people in Russia and groups both inside and outside the country to do whatever they can to resist the state’s ongoing repression of the community.

“There is an important distinction to draw between acknowledging that a democratic reversal in Russia is not on the near horizon and concluding that nothing can or should be done in the meantime. The power of the Russian state, backed by resource wealth and a willingness to use every available instrument of repression, is real and cannot be minimised. And yet what we see from our position, working in support of human rights organisations, defenders, organisers, and activists, is not resignation, but realism paired with determination,” said Smirnova.

“People are continuing to organise, even though the time horizons are long and murky and the measures of ‘value’ of the organising are different from what they might be somewhere else. But keeping the lights on for the possible forms of civic engagement, critical thought, and solidarity is a form of resistance that does have long-term value,” she added.

Oleinik vowed his organisation would not be giving up on LGBTQ+ people in Russia.

“We need to continue our work, our support, because we know that LGBTQ+ people in Russia need us. Right now it might look like there is little hope of positive change, but that does not mean we should stop what we are doing,” he said.

*Name changed for security reasons

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau

Dr Elizabeth Igaga in one of the operating rooms at Smile Train partner, CORSU hospital, Uganda during a partner visit. Credit: Smile Train

By Elizabeth Igaga
KAMPALA Uganda, Jun 16 2026 (IPS)

Global health has a habit of mobilizing around the visible and the dramatic. Ebola, malaria, and Mpox have all dominated headlines related to Africa in recent years, and understandably so. But nobody is talking about one of the most consequential regional health crises waiting to happen.

When a child needs surgery, the first challenge is not the procedure itself. It is getting them safely to sleep. For decades, hospitals across sub-Saharan Africa have relied on a drug called halothane to do that. It has a faintly sweet smell, which means children breathe it in calmly, without distress or resistance. It’s affordable, stable in warm climates, and it works. Although there are anesthetics with fewer side effects that have been used for decades in higher-income countries, in low-resource settings with limited options, it has been indispensable.

Dr. Elizabeth Igaga, Senior Director of Program Safety, Smile Train

I am an anesthesiologist and perioperative patient safety specialist based in Uganda. I work with hospitals across low and middle-income countries to ensure that children who need surgical care receive it safely. Safe anesthesia is not a luxury. It is a foundation of surgical care. What I see on the ground makes the halothane shortage one of the most pressing and underacknowledged patient safety problems in global health today.

The obvious alternative is a drug called sevoflurane. As a more modern anesthetic, it’s safer and more effective than halothane. But in Uganda, sevoflurane costs approximately ten times more than halothane. In settings where health budgets are already stretched, this is not a simple swap.

This matters on an enormous scale. Research published in The Lancet shows that outcomes for children undergoing surgery in Africa are already significantly worse than those in high-income countries, including African mortality rates that are approximately 11 times higher. Remove access to the one anesthetic drug that most African pediatric facilities currently rely on, and those numbers will get worse.

The demographic stakes make this more urgent still. Africa is projected to be home to roughly 40 percent of the world’s children by 2050. The continent already carries an enormous burden of conditions that can only be treated with surgery, much of it in pediatric populations, not to mention a child hit by a car, diagnosed with cancer, or rushed to the hospital with a ruptured appendix. All of these children face the same anesthesia infrastructure as everyone else, and when that infrastructure fails, what would have been a survivable crisis becomes something far worse.

What is often misunderstood about the transition away from halothane is that it is not simply a matter of substituting one drug for another. It is a systems problem with at least four distinct components that all need to move at the same time.

The first is government procurement. Halothane is currently embedded in national drug budgets across the continent at a price point that sevoflurane cannot match. Ministers of health and national procurement authorities must make an active decision to fund the difference and begin revising their drug budgets now, before shortages force their hand under emergency conditions. Market dynamics mean dwindling supplies will make halothane increasingly expensive, another component that could put essential surgeries out of reach.

The second is equipment. Many anesthesia machines currently in use across African hospitals are not compatible with sevoflurane without modification or outright replacement. That requires hospital-by-hospital assessment to understand what is needed before a single bottle of the new drug is ordered. Committing to a new anesthetic without first confirming that the infrastructure can deliver it safely is not a transition plan; it is a different kind of crisis.

The third is the supply chain. Sevoflurane needs to be formally incorporated into national essential medicines lists and procurement frameworks so that it reaches facilities reliably and at negotiated prices, rather than arriving sporadically through fragmented channels.

The fourth is workforce training. The majority of anesthesia care in Africa is delivered by non-physician anesthesia providers rather than doctors. Administering anesthesia to a child is one of the most technically demanding and emotionally weighty responsibilities in medicine, requiring precise judgment in real time when the margin for error is razor-thin. Nobody should be put in the position of performing that task for the first time on an unfamiliar drug in the middle of an emergency. These providers need structured, supervised training on sevoflurane before the transition happens, not after. National anesthesia societies have a direct role to play here, both in alerting their members to what is coming and in developing and delivering the training programs they will need.

The World Federation of Societies of Anaesthesiologists has already called on national and regional health authorities to rapidly budget for and implement a safe transition to sevoflurane. That call deserves a far more urgent response than it has received so far. Countries that stockpiled halothane may have a few additional months of runway. Countries that did not are already running low.

The Philippines and Indonesia have already navigated this shift successfully, and they offer a promising roadmap, including training for local biomedical engineers and anesthesia providers to ensure the transition is safe, practical, and sustainable. The lesson from those experiences is not that transition is easy, but that it is entirely achievable when governments, health systems, and the medical community move together with a shared plan.

The difference between those countries and much of sub-Saharan Africa right now is time and attention. Unlike other urgent global health situations, halothane depletion will not arrive with an outbreak curve or a dramatic headline. It will arrive quietly, one empty bottle at a time, in a hospital where a child needs surgery and the only drug the staff knows how to use is no longer on the shelf. By the time that moment becomes a crisis visible enough to mobilize a response, it will already be too late.

We know this is coming and what the solution requires. The only thing that remains uncertain is whether we will treat it with the urgency it deserves.

Elizabeth Igaga is Senior Director of Program Safety, Smile Train

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Tomorrow, Africa hosts the Our Ocean Conference on its own shores for the first time, in Mombasa.

This is more than a diplomatic milestone. It is a test of whether we, as Africans, are prepared to safeguard our ocean as a shared heritage and a pillar of our future prosperity.

James Alix Michel

As former President of Seychelles, I had the privilege to help pioneer the blue economy concept in Seychelles and the South West Indian Ocean. That vision, born from our own lived reality, was simple but profound: our economic future depends on a healthy ocean. We must build prosperity not by exhausting marine wealth, but by restoring and protecting it.

Today, as the world gathers in Kenya under the theme “Our Ocean, Our Heritage, Our Future”, that same blue economy vision must guide Africa’s choices. The theme is not a slogan to open a conference; it is a call to re imagine the relationship between our societies and the sea. It demands that we treat the ocean as a living heritage we hold in trust, not a frontier for short term extraction.

Earlier this year, together with Dona Bertarelli, we called for a moratorium on deep sea mining and for stronger protection of Africa’s ocean. We did so in anticipation of the Mombasa conference, knowing that the decisions taken there – or avoided there – will echo across our continent and far beyond. Africa’s voice on the ocean has to be heard clearly, and our commitments will be judged not by the elegance of our words, but by the protections that reach people and nature.

Deep sea mining crystallises what is at stake. The deep ocean is one of the last largely unknown frontiers on our planet. It supports ecosystems that have taken millennia to form and that play roles in global processes we are only beginning to understand. To open this fragile realm to industrial mining without robust, independent science and effective governance would be to gamble with consequences we cannot foresee and cannot reverse.

For Africa, the risks are even more acute. Many of our states are still building their scientific and regulatory capacities. Many of our coastal communities and small scale fishers already face pressure from climate change, pollution and overfishing. To layer the uncertain impacts of deep sea mining on top of these existing stresses would be reckless.

This is why I support a precautionary pause on deep sea mining. Precaution is not anti development. It is responsible leadership in a time of profound uncertainty. It says: we will not mortgage the ocean that sustains us for promises of quick gain, especially when those gains may flow elsewhere while the damage remains with us.

Africa’s seas underpin our food security, our climate resilience, our blue economies, our cultures and our identities as ocean peoples. They are the living foundation for millions of coastal and island communities across the continent, from the Western Indian Ocean to the Atlantic and Mediterranean shores. To treat them as mere repositories of minerals is to ignore their true value and the rights of those who depend on them.

As leaders, negotiators and experts gather in Mombasa, I believe Africa should speak with one clear, principled message.

First, our ocean is not a frontier for unchecked extraction, but a heritage we hold in trust. Decisions taken in Mombasa must respect the ocean’s ecological limits and recognise the special vulnerabilities and rights of small island developing states and coastal nations.

Second, any activity in the deep sea must proceed only when independent science shows it will not cause irreversible harm. That means investing in African and global scientific capacity and listening to evidence, not to pressure for rapid exploitation.

Third, ocean decisions must prioritise coastal communities, small scale fishers, women and youth, and the countries that depend on the sea every day. The benefits of a blue economy must be shared fairly, and its governance must be inclusive. Communities on the frontlines of change must be at the centre of decision making, not at the margins.

From Seychelles, we know that it is possible to chart a different course. Through marine spatial planning, marine protected areas, innovative financing and a strong commitment to conservation, we have shown that protecting the ocean can go hand in hand with creating opportunities for our people. The blue economy is not a theory for us. It is a lived pathway, built through hard choices and long term vision.

From Mombasa, Africa now has a chance to lead. True ocean leadership requires more than ambitious speeches. It requires restraint as well as innovation, protection as well as investment. It demands that we say “not yet” when the science is uncertain and the risks are too great. It asks us to measure success not only in money raised, but in coral reefs saved, fish stocks rebuilt and communities strengthened.

The Our Ocean Conference was created to move the world from promises to action. Let us ensure that the action that emerges from Mombasa honours its theme: “Our Ocean, Our Heritage, Our Future.” Let us ensure that the legacy of this conference is a safer ocean for Africa and for the world, not new risks passed on to our children.

From Victoria to Mombasa, from Seychelles to the African mainland, our message should be united and firm: Africa’s ocean is not for sacrifice. It is for stewardship. It is for our people. And it is for our future.

James Alix Michel is the former President of the Republic of Seychelles and founder of the James Michel Foundation.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Thousands gather outside Istanbul City Hall to mark one year since the arrest of Mayor Ekrem İmamoğlu on 18 March 2026. Credit: Yasin Akgul/AFP

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

When Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orbán lost by a landslide to a unified opposition in April, Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan was watching. The lesson he drew was not that he should be more moderate; it was that he needed to crack down harder. He had already arrested Istanbul Mayor Ekrem İmamoğlu, the opposition Republican People’s Party (CHP)’s leading presidential contender, in March 2025. After Orbán’s defeat, he has accelerated his campaign to fracture the opposition and rewrite the rules before the next election in 2028.

Electoral autocracy

Erdoğan has been in power since 2003. After surviving a coup attempt in July 2016, he used emergency powers to purge the state at scale. Over 150,000 people were detained, fired or suspended from their jobs. Emergency decrees expanded the government’s power to shut down organisations and remove elected officials. A 2017 constitutional referendum, narrowly approved in a campaign that independent observers found deeply flawed, replaced Turkey’s parliamentary system with a hyper-presidential one.

Independent media has been systematically dismantled. Turkey now ranks 163rd out of 180 countries on Reporters Without Borders’ 2026 World Press Freedom Index. Yet elections have continued, and the opposition has continued to win at the municipal level, most strikingly in Istanbul in 2019 and again by an even wider margin in 2024. That residual competitiveness is what Erdoğan is now moving to close.

İmamoğlu had beaten Erdoğan’s candidate in Istanbul twice, was formally nominated as the CHP’s 2028 presidential candidate and polled strongly against Erdoğan nationally. Authorities arrested him on charges of corruption and links with terrorism as his nomination was under way, triggering Turkey’s largest wave of protests in over a decade. A 4,000-page indictment filed in November 2025 sought to sentence him to over 2,000 years in prison. Espionage charges followed in February 2026. His trial began in March amid continuing protests. He remains in prison, and in the 14 months since his arrest, over 500 more people have been detained, including 16 CHP-affiliated mayors.

With İmamoğlu imprisoned, Erdoğan’s next move was to prevent the CHP from consolidating around anyone else. On 21 May, an appeals court annulled the outcomes of the CHP’s 2023 national congress, ejecting the party’s elected leader Özgür Özel, who had raised the CHP to rough parity with Erdoğan’s Justice and Development Party (AKP) in national polls, and reinstating his predecessor Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu, a divisive figure who lost the last presidential election. Özel condemned the ruling as a judicial coup and refused to leave the party’s headquarters. Three days later, riot police stormed in, firing rubber bullets and teargas. The government denied any involvement, implausibly claiming the judiciary had acted independently. The operation was legal in form and political in substance.

Turkey’s constitution limits presidents to two five-year terms, and Erdoğan’s second expires in 2028. In May 2025, he appointed a legal team to draft a new constitution. It seems clear the goal is to extend his eligibility. The AKP and its nationalist allies fall short of the parliamentary threshold required to change the constitution or call a referendum on it. Some analysts believe the government’s recent initiative to end the decades-long conflict with the Kurdistan Workers’ Party is at least partly designed to attract enough parliamentary votes to clear that threshold.

There is a structural reason the stakes are so high. Turkey’s hyper-presidential system means that, unlike Orbán, Erdoğan would have no safe path back from electoral defeat. For him, losing power could mean political extinction. His crackdown is a response to this threat.

Civil society resistance

Turkey’s civil society has, however, not submitted. Huge protests followed İmamoğlu’s arrest. A mass rally marked his 100th day in jail, and people marched again when the CHP headquarters were raided. Most recently, when Erdoğan ordered the closure of Bilgi University, one of Turkey’s oldest liberal academic institutions, students and staff immediately gathered outside to protest. Within two days the government reversed the closure. This illustrated both the extent of Erdoğan’s repressive urges and their limits when met with swift resistance.

The government has responded to protest with blanket bans on public gatherings, social media restrictions and mass arrests. Four days after İmamoğlu’s arrest, at least 1,879 people had been detained. Police repeatedly intervened forcefully, using teargas and detaining protesters and journalists.

Orbán’s downfall has frightened Erdoğan as much as it has inspired the Turkish opposition. He is moving to eliminate the conditions that made it possible. He has got rid of the most credible and unifying opposition candidate, neutralised the main opposition party and is in the process of dismantling what’s left of an electoral architecture that, however tilted, could still allow the opposition to win.

Turkey’s democracy now depends on whether enough people keep showing up, and on whether they can keep resisting Erdoğan’s campaign to dismantle democracy.

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
  

The German government, along with a number of other countries, are currently organising flights to evacuate travellers and influencers stranded in the Gulf states. For many citizens of other nationalities, however, there is no such assistance. They remain stuck in precarious situations, marked by exploitation and insecurity.

Robin Frisch

A system based on exploitation

The fact that these migrant workers cannot be evacuated is due to structural reasons. In the Gulf monarchies, the kafala system binds migrant workers to a kafil, or sponsor. This modern form of servitude gives employers virtually unlimited control over their workforce. The Gulf model only functions because workers are permanently kept in temporary employment. They are imported, but not integrated. Their rights remain limited, social security is minimal and political participation not permitted. This arrangement is not a shortcoming but a prerequisite for maximum flexibility and low costs.

The fact that the Gulf states’ economic model is reaching its limits is also increasingly the subject of current debate. In a much-discussed New York Times essay, Richard Florida explains that the economic model in Dubai and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) is actually exacerbating the crisis. His question – ‘Could this be the end of Dubai?’ – can certainly be answered in the affirmative, at least from a social perspective. The Gulf states have all failed to provide a social safety net for their millions of workers. The mere import of workers, and complete absence of integration or social security, signal the end of the Dubai model. For decades, the Gulf states have profited from permanently keeping their workers in temporary employment. This model may be economically efficient, but it is structurally vulnerable.

The current war is acting as a stress test for this system. And it has shown that there are no institutional mechanisms in place to protect migrant workers. While citizens are being evacuated, millions of migrant workers are left behind. While supply chains are being secured, there remains a lack of the most basic protection for those who keep those chains running. Nobody is taking responsibility — it is just being passed from pillar to post, between countries of origin, employers and governments.

An International Labour Organization (ILO) study showed that social security, if it exists at all, only ever applies to formal employment contracts. In almost all the Gulf states, these regulations place the burden on the employee. Health insurance is mandatory and must be purchased privately. Not one Gulf state has a functioning system of unemployment insurance. Saudi Arabia is the only state that provides social security coverage for workers from certain countries of origin. This model of temporary migration appears to be so successful that even the current crisis will not change it. It is not in the interests of the Gulf states to provide social security as they derive no benefit from it themselves.

Not a single Gulf country has ratified the landmark ILO Convention 189 on decent work for domestic workers, though Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the UAE have at least made slight improvements to their national legislation and acknowledge the problems. In Kuwait, Bahrain and Oman, union activity is not strictly prohibited, and trade unions are working to better integrate migrant workers. However, the crisis caused by the war is now so dire that the extent to which the situation has improved for domestic workers seems of secondary importance. Whether through trade unions, government measures or employer obligations, what matters is that the situation for migrant workers in the Gulf states is fundamentally improved. Reforms will achieve little. It is time for systemic change.

Developing a social safety net

The executive secretary of the Arab Trade Union Confederation, Hind Benammar, has criticised the kafala system, but at the same time advocates for channels of communication to be opened with Saudi Arabia. Such diplomatic efforts are important now as they can help initiate reforms and resolve conflicts between governments. But the fundamental problem remains: How can working conditions be improved in the long term, and what form might an effective social security net take?

The victims of Iranian attacks in Dubai and the UAE were almost all migrant workers. In Dubai, there were even alarming social media posts about labour migrants being imprisoned. The strict internet censorship in these countries complicates the situation, as members of migrant communities are often unable to openly discuss the conditions on the ground. The fact that in this situation, it is the migrant networks – not governments – that are picking up the slack is not a sign of resilience but systematic failure.

One of the few organisations that are actually helping migrant workers at the moment is the International Domestic Workers Federation (IDWF). The IDWF organises emergency accommodation and coordinates aid, thereby effectively replacing government safety nets. Social security only exists where it is improvised. The millions of jobs as cleaners, nannies and nurses are primarily carried out by women. Domestic workers are often not even allowed to leave their workplaces, let alone move freely in public spaces. The social isolation of these workers is reminiscent of the pandemic. Here, too, they had nobody to rely on except for their own communities.

When governments, employers and insurances fail to provide assistance, communities must step into the breach. The IDWF approaches the embassies of workers’ countries of origin, calls for repatriation flights to be organised and provides its members with individual-level safeguards. They make contact with domestic workers through community leaders. These individuals, who together play a role similar to that of a works council, provide information about the situation, offer support in emergencies and organise training sessions on issues such as mental health, which is becoming increasingly important in light of the severe social isolation. In some of the Gulf states, this work has been criminalised, and several community leaders have even been detained. For domestic workers, but also for those in the construction and transportation sectors, this is a matter of sheer survival. For the most part, however, the Gulf states have no established trade union tradition. In the Gulf monarchies, policy-making is controlled by a handful of powerful men.

Over the last few years, Qatar and Saudi Arabia have sought to make financial contributions to the ILO. But the Gulf states will not be able to simply buy themselves a clean slate. Ambet Yuson, general secretary of the six-million-member Building and Wood Workers’ International (BWI), has condemned the fact that Saudi Arabia’s reforms by no means signify an abolition of the kafala system, claiming they are in fact little more than rebranding. In Saudi Arabia, stadiums for the 2034 World Cup are currently being built, but the construction sector also lacks a basic social safety net. It would be disastrous if the mistakes made in Qatar were to be repeated here. There, too, the kafala system resulted in exploitation, as any worker who lost their job found it nigh on impossible to switch to a new sponsor. Recruitment practices and indebtedness in the home country further exacerbate this dependence.

Thus, the war has not only exposed a crisis — it has marked a boundary. A model that consistently shifts risks onto legally marginalised workers will only remain stable provided no shocks occur. As soon as they do, it becomes clear that there is no social security because uncertainty is an inherent part of the system. The Gulf crisis shows just how important it is to develop the social safety net that the trade unions are advocating for. The much-discussed question of reforms does not go far enough. The real problem is structural. Yet this does not automatically result in systemic change. On the contrary: reactions so far suggest that the cost of the crisis will, in fact, continue to be shifted onto migrant workers.

Change will therefore not come from the Gulf states alone. Here, external and transnational levers are crucial. Countries of origin must enforce stronger protection mechanisms and binding social security agreements; international organisations such as the ILO must strengthen minimum standards; and European countries must take responsibility, for instance by regulating recruitment practices, supply chains and labour standards.

Robin Frisch is the head of the regional trade union project in the MENA region and of the Friedrich Ebert Foundation’s office in Algeria.

Source: International Politics and Society, published by the Global and European Policy Unit of the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, Hiroshimastrasse 28, D-10785 Berlin.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

 
CIVICUS discusses Botswana’s decriminalisation of same-sex relations with Faith Gunda, a Botswana-based law student and human rights defender, a member of the CIVICUS Protest Lab and co-founder of Sisterhood Chain International, a solidarity initiative that supports grassroots groups and amplifies young women’s voices.

Faith Gunda

What does repeal mean for LGBTQI+ people?

The formal repeal is symbolic, but symbols matter because they tell people whether they belong. For years, criminal provisions sent a message to LGBTQI+ people in Botswana: you are criminals. Even after the courts ruled these provisions unconstitutional in 2019, they remained on the books, a constant reminder that the state saw their identities as a threat. Their removal aligns written law with constitutional values of dignity, equality, liberty and privacy. But more importantly, it says that LGBTQI+ people are not criminals.

This changes everything for young people. When the law no longer criminalises your identity, it has positive impacts on mental health, belonging and civic participation. It lets LGBTQI+ people report violence, seek healthcare and live openly without fear. People can breathe a little easier. They can imagine futures they couldn’t before.

This progress didn’t come from above. It came from years of relentless advocacy by LGBTQI+ activists, LGBTQI+ organisations such as Lesbians, Gays and Bisexuals of Botswana and everyday people willing to risk everything to challenge entrenched stigma. The formal repeal is not the end of a struggle. It’s a foundation for the next phase. The work continues.

Why did it take so long to remove provisions courts declared unconstitutional?

Legal victories and political change don’t move at the same pace. The courts were clear in 2019 that the law was unconstitutional. But court rulings cannot implement themselves. Colonial-era laws remain embedded in statute books because removing them takes political will and politicians fear backlash. For six years, LGBTQI+ people lived with a law the courts had already called unjust.

What finally made change happen was sustained pressure. Civil society organisations, human rights defenders and lawyers refused to let this go. The Court of Appeal upheld the judgment in 2021, and activists kept speaking up, organising and demanding implementation. In March, the law finally changed. So, this is the lesson: court rulings matter, but it’s sustained civic action that turns them into real protection.

What barriers remain, and what comes next?

Decriminalisation isn’t the same as equality, but it’s the foundation for it. Real equality means marriage rights, family recognition and anti-discrimination protections. The marriage equality case due to be heard in court in July will test whether constitutional protections reach beyond private intimacy into full citizenship and whether same-sex couples can access the dignity and legal recognition marriage provides.

But legal barriers are only a part of the story. Social barriers persist too, including stigma in families, healthcare systems, schools and workplaces. Legal reform creates protection, but it cannot instantly change rooted attitudes. Young people in Botswana increasingly believe everyone should be able to live authentically without fear. They are organising, speaking openly, refusing the silence previous generations endured. This generational shift is becoming the most powerful driver of change.

The journey is not linear, but the direction is undeniable. Meaningful reform takes continuous civic engagement. This means activists documenting and defending civic space, grassroots organisations amplifying youth leadership and people refusing to accept anything less than full humanity.

Is Botswana an example for Africa?

Botswana’s progress shouldn’t be romanticised. The country still faces social conservatism and discrimination, and its gains will be vulnerable unless they are continuously defended. But it offers a model to follow.

Botswana stands out on the continent because it succeeded through civic advocacy, constitutionalism and judicial independence. This matters all the more now, when several African governments are passing harsher anti-LGBTQI+ laws and dismissing these rights as ‘un-African’, even though the laws banning same-sex relations were colonial imports.

Botswana’s path challenges that narrative. It shows that African constitutional democracies can interpret dignity, equality and liberty inclusively, without abandoning local legal traditions. For human rights defenders across the region, Botswana is proof that civic engagement, sustained advocacy and strategic litigation can produce meaningful change even in difficult political climates.

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
LinkedIn
TikTok

SEE ALSO
Botswana: criminalisation of same-sex relations off the books CIVICUS Lens 21.May.2026
Gender rights: rollback and resistance CIVICUS | State of Civil Society Report 2026
Namibia: LGBTQI+ rights victory amid regression CIVICUS Lens 05.Jul.2024

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

An aerial view of a beach with a ferris wheel, Ain Dubai, Bluewaters, Dubai, UAE. Credit: Unsplash/Nelemson Guevarra

By Maximilian Malawista
UNITED NATIONS, Jun 12 2026 (IPS)

The global ocean economy continues its expansion, with ocean-related trade reaching USD 2.5 trillion as of 2025. Ocean services now make up the majority of the ocean trade, accounting for 58.9 percent of the composition, up from 47.8 percent in 2020.

Ocean services alone are now valued at USD 1.44 trillion dollars, an increase of USD 1.2 trillion since 2020; a rate greater than the entire global ocean trade in 2020. While 2020 was a year filled with disruptions, economies contracting, and consumer smoothing, this number is an increase of USD 476 billion dollars since 2015, a 49.5 percent growth from 2015, where the ocean services trade generated USD 961 billion.

“The ocean economy is expanding rapidly across sectors such as aquaculture, tourism, and shipping. While this growth is vital for food security, employment, and economic development, it’s increasingly constrained by the declining health of the ocean,” said Rafael González Quiroz, co-director of the United Nations ‘Third World Ocean Assessment’ and director of Spain’s Oceanographic center of Gijón (IEO-CSIC), during a press briefing held on World Ocean Day (June 8).

The UN World Ocean Assessment is a global integrated assessment of the world’s ocean following environmental, economic and social aspects, with interdisciplinary inputs from more than 650 experts to provide scientific basis for the consideration of ocean issues by governments and policy makers, among other stakeholders involved in the regulation and protection of the ocean.

Quiroz’s assessment reflect the broader expansion and changes within the ocean economy, where services have an increasingly dominant role in the global ocean economy. The strongest example of such is the recovery of marine and coastal tourism, which has turned sharply since the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic.

Credit: IPS/Maximilian Malawista

Today, marine and coastal tourism now accounts for 32 percent of global ocean trade, up from 16 percent in 2020. 32 percent representing USD 785 billion, over half of all ocean services trade. Maritime freight transport remains the second highest, at roughly USD 487 billion or 20 percent of total ocean trade. Quiroz emphasized that a “sustainable ocean economy can only exist if it’s built upon a healthy and resilient ocean”.

One of the key challenges highlighted during the briefing was marine pollution, especially plastics. Within global plastics trade, only 10 percent of all plastics are recycled. 52 million tonnes of such plastic waste every year enters the ocean, which the United Nations states is affecting at least 4,000 marine species.

In response, the international community has spent the past six years working on negotiating a “global plastics treaty”, an agreement which would put a ceiling on plastic production, and limit the USD 1.1 trillion dollar industry, ensuring waste management standards, recycling requirements, and creating market space for sustainable alternatives.

Achieving this may require changes to global trade incentives. UN Trade and Development (UNCTAD) finds that “the key barrier is an uneven national and trade policy field.”

According to UNCTAD, tariffs on plastics have fallen from 34 percent to 7.2 percent over the past 3 decades, giving plastic producers a larger incentive to keep making more plastic. While plastic tariffs have decreased, alternatives to plastics like bamboo, natural fibers, paper, and seaweed have had tariffs double to the rate of 14.4 percent. As a result of such tariffs, conventional plastics remain the cheaper option for manufacturers.

However, recent volatility in the energy markets stemming from the current Strait of Hormuz crisis has increased the cost of plastic production. Reports from UNCTAD show that because plastics are approximately 98 percent derived from fossil fuels, the cost of plastic prices has risen 70-80 percent in the European markets. This market shock could open the door for sustainable alternatives, giving real reason for companies to develop products free of polyethylene resin and other plastics, further developing the sustainable alternatives industry.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Data cables connected on network switches in a computer server room. Scott Rodgerson on Unsplash Credit: Africa Renewal

By United Nations Economic Commission for Africa
UNITED NATIONS, Jun 12 2026 (IPS)

African leaders are sharpening their focus on digital sovereignty, warning that the continent’s economic future will depend not just on connectivity, but on who controls its data—and where it is stored.

At a high-level roundtable during the 58th session of the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa Conference of Ministers, held in Tangiers, Morocco, in April 2026, policymakers and technology leaders signaled a decisive shift in Africa’s digital ambitions: from being consumers of technology to becoming architects of their own digital infrastructure and data ecosystems.

Central to this shift is the idea of “sovereign data”—ensuring that African data is stored, processed and governed within the continent.

Participants emphasized that digital independence is no longer optional; it is a prerequisite for economic security and national resilience.

“Digital public infrastructure is as vital today as electricity,” said Américo Muchanga, Mozambique’s Minister of Communications and Digital Transformation. But, he added, infrastructure alone is not enough. Governments must now decide how to classify and manage their data—what remains within national borders, and what can be shared—so that its value benefits African economies.

Beyond infrastructure: entering the “age of intelligence”

For years, Africa’s digital agenda has focused on expanding connectivity—laying fiber, increasing mobile access, and building platforms for public services. While that remains essential, leaders say the conversation must evolve.

Digital public infrastructure (DPI), often described as the “rails” of the digital economy, must now carry something more valuable: intelligence.

As artificial intelligence reshapes economies globally, Africa faces a critical question—will it simply adopt external systems, or build its own?

“Africa must prioritize local data processing and systems that reflect its realities,” said Ambassador Philip Thigo, Kenya’s Special Envoy on Technology. He warned that relying on imported models risks entrenching systems that do not capture African languages, contexts or economic needs.

The solution, participants argued, lies in investing in local talent and capabilities—from data science to AI model training—so that innovation is grounded in African realities.

Building the backbone: data centres and “AI factories”

A recurring theme was the urgent need for infrastructure that can support this transition. Data centres—described as the backbone of the digital economy—remain in short supply.

“Africa needs to increase its data centre capacity tenfold,” said Adil El Youssefi, CEO of Africa Data Centres at Cassava Technologies.

Currently, the continent generates less than 1% of global data despite accounting for nearly 20% of the world’s population.

To bridge this gap, participants called for the development of “AI factories”—facilities capable of storing and processing large volumes of data locally. These would not only support AI development but also ensure that the economic value derived from data remains within Africa.

However, such investments require reliable and affordable energy, as well as long-term financing—two persistent challenges across the continent.

A new model: data embassies and regional cooperation

Among the more innovative ideas discussed was the concept of “data embassies”—shared infrastructure that allows countries to store data securely across borders while maintaining sovereignty.

This model, participants said, could help smaller economies overcome the high costs of building standalone data infrastructure, while strengthening regional integration.

It also reflects a broader push toward collaboration.

Pius Chaya, Tanzania’s Deputy Minister for Planning and Investment, stressed the need for strong public-private partnerships, underpinned by robust cybersecurity and data protection frameworks.

Without trust, he noted, digital systems cannot scale.

From policy to execution

While Africa has made strides in developing digital strategies, leaders acknowledged a familiar challenge: implementation.

Ndaba Gaolathe, Vice President and Finance Minister of Botswana, pointed to a gap between policy ambition and real-world impact. Botswana, he said, is addressing this by using a universal service fund—financed through a levy on mobile operators—to expand connectivity to underserved communities.

“The time for planning alone is over,” he said. “We must now focus on execution.”

This call for “mega execution” reflects a growing urgency to translate strategies into tangible benefits—jobs, services, and economic growth.

Inclusion and measurement

Despite progress, nearly one billion Africans remain offline, even in areas with mobile coverage. Industry representatives, including the GSMA, urged governments to remove taxes on mobile devices to make digital access more affordable.

At the same time, measuring the economic impact of digital transformation remains a challenge.

“If we cannot measure the contribution of technology to GDP, we cannot monetize it,” said Claver Gatete, UNECA’s Executive Secretary. Strengthening national statistical systems, he added, is essential for evidence-based policymaking and accountability.

A defining moment

As Africa accelerates its digital transformation, the stakes are becoming clearer. Data is no longer just a byproduct of the digital economy—it is its most valuable asset.

The discussions in Tangier point to a continent at a crossroads: one that must decide whether to remain a consumer in the global digital order, or to assert control over its data, technologies and economic destiny.

The message from leaders was unmistakable—Africa’s digital future must be built in Africa, and for Africa.

Source: Africa Renewal, United Nations

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Excerpt:

Refugees and staff from the Center for Victims of Torture play soccer and celebrate human rights, Minneapolis, USA, June 2023. Credit: CVT

By Simon Adams
PERTH, Australia, Jun 11 2026 (IPS)

This planet’s biggest sporting event—the FIFA Men’s World Cup—will soon kick off. Millions of people around the world will sit up, bleary eyed, watching matches at unreasonable hours and inventing feeble excuses for why we won’t be at work in the morning. More than one billion are expected to watch the finale on TV in mid-July. That’s a bigger audience than any Olympic sporting event and more than the number of people who have viewed Squid Game on Netflix.

The World Cup is also big business. FIFA predicted the competition might bring in a whopping US$30.5 billion in tourist dollars for the United States, Canada and Mexico—the three 2026 host countries. But all is not well with the beautiful game.

Amnesty International and more than 100 local human rights organizations have issued a travel warning for fans planning to visit the eleven U.S. cities that are hosting World Cup matches. According to figures obtained by Human Rights Watch, ICE arrested 167,000 people around the eleven cities from January 2025 to March 2026. Visitors are warned they may experience invasive searches of their phones at the border, “racial profiling,” and other egregious abuses that breach “the United States’ human rights obligations under domestic and international law.” Even before the first whistle is blown, Africa’s leading referee, Omar Artan from Somalia, was denied entry to the United States at Miami International Airport and will now miss the tournament.

Tourist arrivals in the U.S. were already down 5.4% last year, with a “Trump slump” now impacting the upcoming World Cup. According to a survey of more than 200 host city hotels conducted by the American Hotel and Lodging Association, “nearly 80% said hotel bookings are tracking below initial forecasts.” Some fans are having trouble securing a visa, but spiraling expenses and the threat of being deported for some nasty comment you made about Trump on Facebook are also disincentives.

At a massive “No Kings” protest in Brooklyn last October, I joined my fellow New Yorkers to march against this democratic backsliding in the United States. At least 6 million people protested nationally, with a quarter of million in New York, where I had been working for the past decade.

The day felt like a festival. One protester was blowing a vuvuzela, an annoyingly loud horn introduced to the global community at the 2010 FIFA World Cup in South Africa. Someone else was wearing an inflatable chicken suit and carrying a sign that said, “I’m more mature than the President.”

Despite the frivolity, President Trump had threatened to deploy the FBI against protesters, and his team denounced the No Kings movement as being manufactured by treasonous malcontents. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt blamed the Democratic Party and claimed, “its main constituency are made up of Hamas terrorists, illegal aliens, and violent criminals.” The No King’s website, meanwhile, said that “in America, we don’t have kings and we won’t back down against chaos, corruption, and cruelty.” It felt like a clash was likely.

On the day, however, the most aggressive encounter I had was when someone thrust a small bright-yellow card into my hand. It boldly declared, “Know Your Rights,” and offered helpful text to recite if you were detained, including: “The U.S Constitution grants all people rights. I am proud to be exercising mine.” A QR code linked to relevant legal advice.

Those laws still stand between President Trump and the unconstrained power he covets. But given that Trump has now appointed 265 federal judges and three Supreme Court Justices, some legal safeguards appear precarious. Some U.S. federal agencies have already embraced Trump’s authoritarian tilt, with illegal deportations and the extrajudicial killing of two protesters on the streets of Minneapolis being the most disturbing examples of a corrosive trend.

The resulting gap between jurisprudence and justice can be deadly. As president of the U.S.-based Center for Victims of Torture (CVT) I had visited safe houses in the suburbs of Nairobi, Kenya, for LGBT+ refugees from African countries where same sex relationships were illegal. Article 27 of Kenya’s constitution guarantees freedom from discrimination, but on the streets of Nairobi, many refugees remained vulnerable.

A CVT colleague recently texted to inform me that a LGBT+ refugee from Somalia had been murdered. She was in Kenya awaiting legal resettlement to the United States but had been halted by Trump’s ban on refugee admissions. In Kenya, like any other country, the laws that secure people’s rights are only ever as strong as the willingness of police, courts, and parliaments to uphold them.

Only around a dozen countries in the world have comprehensive national human rights laws, enacted by parliament and grounded in international treaties and conventions. These include South Africa, India, Ireland, as well as Canada, New Zealand and the United Kingdom. Many other states—including Brazil, Japan, United States and Kenya—protect some fundamental rights and freedoms through their constitution or a bill of rights. Australia is the only major liberal democracy in the world without either a national human rights act or a bill of rights, although there is growing domestic pressure to rectify that perilous legal shortcoming.

The World Cup has already given a lot to global culture. Think not just of the insufferable vuvuzela, the embarrassing macarena and the irrepressible Mexican wave. Its deeper value might be in reminding us that in these times of creeping authoritarianism, all states should strengthen their human rights protections.

Simon Adams is Professor of Human Rights, Murdoch University, Australia

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

The Zarafshan River, outside the venue of the Eighth Global Environment Facility Assembly in Uzbekistan, is central to a USD 30 million GEF-funded initiative, the Central Asia Water and Land Nexus Programme (CAWLN). Credit: IISD/ENB/Danny Skilton

By Kizito Makoye
SAMARKAND, Uzbekistan, Jun 10 2026 (IPS)

As ministers, diplomats and development officials assembled in Samarkand Congress Centre for a ceremonial family photograph, the mood carried unusual symbolism. Behind the smiles and formalities stood a region confronting a harder reality: rivers are shrinking, soils are tiring, temperatures are rising, and the old ways of managing land and water are no longer working.

For decades, Central Asia’s countries have wrestled with environmental pressures separately – water ministries worrying about irrigation, ministries of agriculture chasing production targets, and conservation agencies protecting fragmented ecosystems. But climate change is dissolving those bureaucratic boundaries.

At the Eighth Global Environment Facility (GEF) Assembly in Uzbekistan held from May 30 to June 6, 2026, the five Central Asian countries officially launched implementation of the Central Asia Water and Land Nexus Programme (CAWLN) – a USD 30 million GEF-funded initiative implemented by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and designed to manage water, land, biodiversity and food systems as one interconnected system.

Supporters say the initiative could become one of the world’s most closely watched experiments in transboundary climate adaptation.

“We all know Central Asia faces increasing environmental pressures linked to land degradation, water scarcity, biodiversity loss, and climate change,” said Yerland Nysanbaev Minister of Ecology and Natural Resources of Kazakhstan, during the high-level roundtable. “But in response to that, the countries have come together to jointly address these environmental issues.”

Senior government representatives and development partners pose for a group photograph during the official launch of the Central Asia Water–Land Nexus Programme at the Eighth GEF Assembly in Samarkand, Uzbekistan. The initiative brings together the five Central Asian countries – Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan – to strengthen regional cooperation on water security, ecosystem restoration and climate resilience through integrated land and water management. Credit: Kizito Makoye/IPS

Stretching from Kazakhstan’s grasslands to Tajikistan’s mountains and Uzbekistan’s irrigated plains, Central Asia depends on shared river systems and fragile ecosystems that sustain more than 60 million people. Yet the region is warming faster than the global average, glaciers are retreating, drought cycles are intensifying and water competition is growing.

Demand for water has become one of the region’s defining vulnerabilities.

Nearly half of Central Asia already suffers from land degradation, generating economic losses estimated at USD 6 billion annually. At the same time, growing populations and changing consumption patterns continue to place additional pressure on limited natural resources.

Katrina Schneeberger, State Secretary and Director of Switzerland’s Federal Office for the Environment, delivers remarks during the official launch of the Central Asia Water–Land Nexus Programme at the Eighth Global Environment Facility Assembly in Samarkand, Uzbekistan. Credit: Kizito Makoye/IPS

The project seeks to confront those pressures through what officials repeatedly described as a “nexus approach”.

For Switzerland – one of the programme’s strongest supporters – the initiative represents years of regional engagement finally converging into a broader vision.

Addressing ministers and delegates, Katrina Schneeberger, State Secretary and Director of Switzerland’s Federal Office for the Environment, described the programme as a model for the type of environmental cooperation increasingly needed in a warming world.

“It focuses on countries in need, it fosters the integration across environmental topics, and it supports cross-border cooperation,” she said.

Schneeberger argued that environmental policymaking has too often treated ecosystems as disconnected pieces.

“For too long, environmental topics like desertification or water have been tackled separately,” she said. “But in the end, water and land issues are connected.”

Her explanation was simple but powerful.

“Well-managed land will require less water, and properly managed freshwater sources will allow for sustainable and productive agriculture.”

Switzerland’s support for integrated environmental programmes in Central Asia stretches back decades, including transboundary initiatives under the Blue Peace Central Asia framework and previous regional land management programmes.

But officials say the new programme marks a shift in scale and ambition.

At its core, CAWLN seeks to move from managing sectors individually to managing entire landscapes and river systems.

FAO Deputy Director-General Godfrey Magwenzi speaking about the interconnection of climate change, biodiversity loss, water stress, land degradation, and food security across landscapes, river basins, and economies in Central Asia. Credit: Kizito Makoye/IPS

FAO Deputy Director-General Godfrey Magwenzi framed the challenge in global terms.

“Climate change, biodiversity loss, water stress, land degradation, and food security are interconnected across landscapes, river basins, and economies in Central Asia,” he told delegates.

“Integration and cooperation matter to tackle transborder risks, to help countries act together on the drivers of vulnerability, and to accelerate progress towards the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.”

Magwenzi noted that since 2009, FAO has helped countries in the region mobilise nearly USD 77 million in GEF financing.

One previous regional initiative restored integrated management across 2.8 million hectares of drought-prone and salt-affected landscapes while avoiding nearly nine million tonnes of emissions and strengthening resilience for millions of farmers.

The new initiative is built around three major levers.

First, strengthening transboundary governance by creating mechanisms for policy coordination and knowledge sharing.

Second, supporting integrated action directly on landscapes – from farms and forests to river basins.

Third, improving evidence-based decisions using satellite monitoring, geographic information systems and integrated data platforms.

Officials say technology will become central to implementation.

Earth observation systems will track water use, land degradation and ecosystem health, while decision-support tools will help governments translate environmental data into practical action.

Those tools may prove critical.

River Zarafshon near Panjakent, Sughd Region, Tajikistan. Credit: Petar Milošević/Wikipedia

The region’s future is closely tied to two rivers – the Amu Darya and Syr Darya.

Flowing from Central Asia’s mountains toward the Aral Sea basin, these rivers connect countries, economies and millions of livelihoods.

The programme combines four national projects with basin-wide interventions and regional coordination mechanisms.

National projects will address priorities ranging from biodiversity conservation and pasture management in Kazakhstan to agro-woodland restoration in Kyrgyzstan, climate-resilient agriculture in Turkmenistan and ecosystem restoration in Uzbekistan.

Regional components will focus on integrated water management across the Amu Darya, Zarafshon, Panj, Syr Darya and Narin river basins.

Together, supporters hope these investments will restore more than one million hectares of land, avoid millions of tonnes of carbon emissions and improve livelihoods for nearly half a million people.

Francesca Carabini, who leads transboundary cooperation work under the UNECE Water Convention, reminded participants that Central Asia’s experiments with nexus governance are already shaping global practice.

One of the earliest river basins assessed under the Water-Energy-Ecosystem Nexus framework was the Syr Darya.

During a separate press briefing, FAO climate and environment chief Kaveh Zahedi argued that agriculture, often blamed for environmental degradation, must become part of the solution.

“The way we produce food and support farmers is directly connected to the health of our climate,” he said.

“It’s directly connected to the health of our soil and land. And it’s directly connected to our water and ecosystems.”

Zahedi cited alarming global trends.

In 2024 alone, more than 96 million people faced acute food insecurity linked partly to weather extremes intensified by climate change, while more than 700 million people continue to live with hunger.

Yet agriculture also offers opportunity.

“Done right, food and farming can deliver up to one-third of the emissions reductions needed while also protecting nature.”

Responding to IPS questions about balancing biodiversity and economic needs, Zahedi rejected the notion that environmental protection and livelihoods must compete.

“The sustainable use of biodiversity is very much at the heart, including sustainable agriculture,” he said.

“It’s not just about protection of biodiversity – it is about conservation, regeneration, and sustainable use of biodiversity.”

He added: “You don’t need to tell a farmer how important it is to have healthy soils.”

Projects such as agroforestry and landscape restoration, he argued, improve resilience while protecting incomes.

At the Assembly’s closing ceremony, GEF Interim CEO Claude Gascon had offered perhaps the clearest political message of the gathering.

“Today marks an important moment for Central Asia and for the global environment as we enter the sprint towards 2030,” he said.

“The five countries in the region have once again joined environmental forces.”

Gascon described the programme as evidence that countries increasingly recognise that “water and land issues are interlinked and are best tackled together rather than in isolation.”

He called the shift toward “whole-of-government and whole-of-society approaches” essential for the next phase of environmental action.

Outside the venue, Samarkand’s summer heat offered its own reminder of what is at stake.

The city perched along the Zarafshan River – one of Central Asia’s historic lifelines and a place where questions of water, agriculture and survival have shaped civilisation for centuries.

Today, climate change is forcing those questions back to the centre.

Whether the Central Asia Water and Land Nexus Programme succeeds will depend not only on funding or policy but also on whether countries can sustain cooperation across borders long after the conference banners come down.

Note: This feature is published with the support of the GEF. IPS is solely responsible for the editorial content, and it does not necessarily reflect the views of the GEF.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau

Distribution of emergency shelter supplies in Abyan, Yemen funded by the Yemen Humanitarian Fund (YHF). Credit: UN OCHA/Altawasul

By Maximilian Malawista
UNITED NATIONS, Jun 10 2026 (IPS)

In Yemen, increasing funding constraints on humanitarian operations have put millions of civilians in dire need of life-saving assistance amid overlapping crises. Acute food insecurity is a persistent issue, as recent reports from the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC) give a stark warning of conditions without urgent intervention.

According to the IPC Acute Food Insecurity Snapshot, one in two people within Government of Yemen (GoY) controlled areas are experiencing high levels of food insecurity, with percentages only expecting to rise or maintain as the conflict goes on. 3.6 million people are experiencing IPC phase 3 (crisis level), and 1.4 million people are experiencing even worse conditions at IPC Phase 4 (emergency). Such measures indicate “extreme coping strategies” where families are forced to sell their house, land, their last female animal, and beg due to the limited supply of food.

Food Insecurity Projection in Yemen | June – September 2026. Credit: IPC

As the crisis looms, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the World Food Programme (WFP), and the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) have “jointly called on the international community to urgently scale up funding for humanitarian food assistance, nutrition services, health, agriculture and resilience programming.” according to the spokesperson for the Secretary General, Stéphane Dujarric.

The IPC projects that food supply conditions will only worsen through October and December 2026, with 1.8 million people being in phase 4, 3.6 million being in phase 3, and 3.2 million being in phase 2.

The ongoing conflict is driving heightened amounts of food insecurity due to intensifying macroeconomic pressures, making the local currency, the Yemeni Riyal, highly volatile due to “depleted reserves of halted oil exports”. Insecurity is also impacted by irregular salaries, limited labor opportunities, and a smaller and smaller household purchasing power each day.

Food Insecurity Projection in Yemen | October – December 2026. Credit: IPC

In April, the Houthis, which controls the northwest of Yemen and the capital of Sana’a, threatened to close the Bab al-Mandeb Strait, which connects the Red Sea to the Gulf of Aden. In the event of this strait being closed, the entire red sea and the Suez Canal would virtually be unpassable other than a few exports / imports between Saudi Arabia’s western province, Egypt, Sudan, and Eritrea, which would likely still receive pressure at its ports. This would further increase food insecurity in Yemen, as humanitarian assistance is the only lifeline keeping Yemenis under famine levels. Without humanitarian assistance the situation would become increasingly lethal, making this call for action vital for the safety and vitality of Yemeni lives.

According to OCHA, at least USD 2.2 billion will be needed for assistance of twelve million people of the 22.3 million in need. Approximately 14.71 percent of such funding has been covered, leaving a funding gap of USD 1.8 billion. This is likely to become larger as the conflict becomes more costly, increasing food insecurity as the projections suggest.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Niger, Mayahi, Village of Koren Habdjia. At the village health centre supported by UNICEF, mothers come for consultations with their children. This health centre provides care for childhood illnesses, maternal health, and pregnant women. It treats children for malnutrition and also provides delivery services. Credit: UNICEF/Islamane Abdou

By Oritro Karim
UNITED NATIONS, Jun 10 2026 (IPS)

Over the past few years, the humanitarian crisis in Africa’s Sahel region has expanded considerably, largely driven by a surge of violence—particularly in the Central Sahel. Although the crisis has been described by the United Nations (UN) as having “largely faded from the headlines” since its wake in 2012, millions of people across the region are in dire need of humanitarian assistance as civilian displacement, climate shocks, and widespread hunger rapidly spill across borders.

“The people of the Sahel are not on the sidelines of a global crisis; they are at the very heart of one of the world’s most severe and neglected emergencies,” said Charles Bernimolin, the regional head of the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) for West and Central Africa. “Every funding gap has a human cost. When we cut a program, a child loses a meal, women and girls’ protection, and a family loses hope. We cannot allow a financing collapse to become a death sentence for millions of people.”

On June 3, OCHA published the 2026 Humanitarian Needs and Response Overview (HNRO) for the Sahel, detailing a pronounced and escalating humanitarian crisis across Chad, Mali, Niger, Burkina Faso, Northeast Nigeria, and the Far North of Cameroon. OCHA estimates that approximately 24.3 million people across the region are in dire need of humanitarian assistance. According to the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), this includes 7.5 million children in central Sahel alone.

According to figures from the United Nations Regional Information Centre for Western Europe (UNRIC), the majority of terrorism-related murders in the world take place in the Sahel. Additionally, over the course of 2025, OCHA has recorded a sharp rise in civilian exploitation, significant disruptions to local economies, and the uprooting of entire communities across some areas.

The scale of needs is most pronounced in the central Sahel region, which hosts nearly three million internally displaced persons, roughly two million in Burkina Faso, 548,000 in Niger, and 415,000 in Mali. An additional one million refugees have been recorded across numerous neighbouring countries. According to figures from UNICEF, over 3.6 million people have been forcibly displaced as a direct result of violence this year.

In late April, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) recorded a series of large-scale attacks that targeted multiple municipalities across Mali—including the capital, Bamako—resulting in significant civilian casualties and exacerbated displacement. Subsequent attacks between the Mali police and armed groups were reported in the following days

OHCHR also reported numerous allegations of serious human rights violations following the attacks, such as extrajudicial killings and abductions. In May, Mountaga Tall, a Malian politician and lawyer, was abducted from his home, while his wife was assaulted. The whereabouts of Tall, his wife, and several other abduction victims remain unknown.

Additionally, the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) issued findings on May 6 that showed a significant rise in human rights violations against the Fulani ethnic group in Burkina Faso. The Fulani were found to be subjected to extrajudicial killings, abduction, torture, enforced disappearances, arbitrary detention, and property destruction by state and non-state actors.

OCHA reports that armed groups have begun expanding their influence across the central Sahel and Lake Chad Basin regions, stripping entire communities of protection services and any form of governance. Approximately 12,900 schools are estimated to have been closed as a result of escalating instability, leaving over 2.3 million children without education and leaving them increasingly vulnerable to recruitment and exploitation.

Children have been particularly hard-hit by this crisis, with UNICEF recording over 1,500 serious human rights violations against children. Schools continue to be targets for attacks, as a school in Mopti, Mali, was impacted by the presence of explosive devices and armed activity in May, affecting approximately 300 million. In the same period, UNICEF also recorded an attack on a community health facility in Gao, which disrupted access to medical care for roughly 2,700 children.

Recurring climate shocks across the region continue to exacerbate the crisis, with the Sahel warming considerably faster than the global average. Figures from OCHA show that roughly 590,000 people in the Sahel were impacted by violent floods in 2025 alone, with prolonged droughts and widespread desertification devastating local agriculture
and millions of livelihoods.

Prolonged climate shocks and protracted armed conflict have led to the Sahel region forming one of the world’s most severe hunger crises. OCHA projects that from June to August, approximately 15.4 million people could face crisis-level food insecurity or worse, including 1.5 million who could fall into emergency levels.

UNRIC reports that reduced food rations in Mali have resulted in a 64 percent increase in famine across numerous areas, leaving 1.5 million Malians severely food insecure. Additionally, rising fertiliser costs in the Sahel further exacerbate low agricultural yields, while rising fuel prices drive increasing food and aid costs.

Despite the vast and growing scale of needs, humanitarian funding for the Sahel has plummeted in recent years. Support from the international community for the region has reached its lowest level in a decade, with only 29 per cent of funding goals met in 2025, prompting aid organisations to scale back responses and prioritise the most vulnerable populations.

“Across the Sahel, humanitarian actors are implementing a Humanitarian Reset: refocusing on the most urgent needs, simplifying the response, and making sure limited resources have the greatest possible impact,” said Bernimolin.

“This means making difficult choices, improving efficiency, and bringing decision-making closer to affected communities. It also includes acting earlier through anticipatory action, expanding cash assistance, and strengthening support to national and local organizations, who play a key role in reaching people, especially in hard-to-reach areas,” he added.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

UN Special Rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territories Francesca Albanese presents her latest report before delegates at the Human Rights Council in Geneva, Switzerland on 23 March 2026. Credit: Fabrice Coffrini/AFP

By Andrew Firmin
LONDON, Jun 10 2026 (IPS)

For a few days in May, Francesca Albanese could live more easily. On 13 May, a US federal judge ruled that sanctions the Trump administration imposed on her violated her right to free expression. The government was forced to remove the UN Special Rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territories from its sanctions list. But the reprieve lasted barely a week. On 27 May, after an appeals court suspended the ruling, the US Treasury restored sanctions.

The sanctions have been punishing. Due to the dominant role US institutions play in international financial transactions, Albanese can no longer use credit and debit cards. Her apartment in Washington DC has been seized, while Georgetown University ended her affiliation as a scholar. Her offence is to call out Israel’s genocide in Gaza and the occupation policies that preceded it.

An Italian citizen with a legal background, Albanese was appointed in 2022 and began her final term in 2025. She’s consistently been critical of Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories. In 2024, she presented her Anatomy of a Genocide report to the Human Rights Council. The report found reasonable grounds to conclude that Israel was committing genocidal acts in Gaza, and called for an arms embargo. Her 2025 report, From Economy of Occupation to Economy of Genocide, set out the complicity of major companies in Israel’s human rights atrocities.

Albanese’s demands for justice have brought a fierce backlash from Israel and its allies. Israel called for her to be removed from her post and banned her from visiting Israel and Palestine. The Trump administration followed suit in calling for her sacking. When it imposed sanctions on Albanese last July, it was the first time these had been applied against a UN independent human rights expert.

Sanctions politicised

Albanese isn’t the only target. Democratic states have long applied sanctions against dictators, terrorists and human rights abusers, but the Trump administration is increasingly using them as a weapon against people who defend human rights.

This month, Israel received widespread international condemnation for its actions against the Global Sumud Flotilla, a civil society-led initiative to defy Israel’s chokehold on aid for Gaza and bring vital humanitarian supplies by sea. Israel intercepted the boats in international waters, abducted those on board and subjected them to sickening abuse. When Israel’s far-right national security minister Itamar Ben-Gvir posted a video of himself taunting the abducted activists, democratic states including Canada, Italy and the UK deplored his behaviour, and France and Poland banned him from their countries.

But the US government has done the opposite, imposing sanctions on four activists involved in organising the flotilla. The politicisation of sanctions is evident, given that one of Donald Trump’s first acts on returning to the presidency was to lift sanctions on violent Israeli West Bank settlers.

The International Criminal Court (ICC) is also a target. Last year the Trump administration sanctioned nine ICC officials. The measures came after the ICC issued arrest warrants on crimes against humanity and war crimes charges against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and ex-Defence Minister Yoav Gallant, and in retaliation for the court’s investigation into potential US war crimes in Afghanistan.

Trump sanctioned two ICC officials in his first term and has repeatedly attacked the ICC, with reports last year that his administration was threatening further sanctions to try to force revisions of the court’s founding treaty, the Rome Statute, to explicitly prevent it having jurisdiction over non-member states such as the USA. Early in his second presidency, he issued an executive order threatening sanctions against anyone who participates in the ICC’s investigations. This sweeping order enabled the sanctions against Albanese.

Trump has also weaponised sanctions to block climate action. Last year the International Maritime Organization was about to finalise a deal to limit the shipping industry’s greenhouse gas emissions. At the last minute, adoption of the new rules was postponed when Trump threatened sanctions against states that supported the emissions curbs.

Chilling effect

Beyond their immediate effects, sanctions help repressive states smear human rights advocates as criminals and terrorists. For Albanese, sanctions form part of a broader campaign to restrict her right to speak out. She has received death threats, which have also been levelled against her daughter.

A broader chilling effect on civil society is visible. Concern about being penalised for sanctions violations caused two US-based human rights groups to pull out of the ICC’s annual meeting last year. For the Trump administration, sanctions are part of a wider onslaught on the rights of people and institutions to demand justice for Israel’s many human rights violations. They’ve come alongside violence against US protests in solidarity with Palestine, deportations of activists and threats to throw young people out of university and defund education institutions.

The misuse of sanctions also forms part of a broader assault on the institutions and rules of global governance. At the same time that the Trump administration is twisting international norms about how sanctions are used and who they’re applied to, it’s also choosing which organisations to participate in and which rules to follow depending on what it sees as the US national interest, and lashing out at international bodies and processes that bring human rights scrutiny.

A single ruling, now suspended, was never going to be enough against the Trump administration’s increasing use of sanctions as a tool to try to silence people. The democratic states that condemned Israel’s abuses against the flotilla activists must show the same resolve when the world’s most powerful state turns sanctions against people whose only offence is to insist that human rights apply everywhere, including in Gaza.

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
  

GA During NPT Review Conference. Credit: Jonathan Granoff

By Jonathan Granoff
NEW YORK, Jun 10 2026 (IPS)

Martin Luther King Jr. , when he received the Nobel Peace Prize, reminded us of “The fact that most of the time human beings put the truth about the nature and risks of the nuclear war out of their minds because it is too painful and therefore not ‘acceptable’, does not alter the nature and risks of such war. The device of ‘rejection’ may temporarily cover up anxiety, but it does not bestow peace of mind and emotional security.” I have devoted many decades of my life to not ignoring the risk of nuclear annihilation and since 1995 have attended every Review Conference of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty to learn and hopefully contributed to a saner safer world.

The 191 nations which are parties to the third most important legal instrument of the 20th Century, the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), recently finished a Review Conference at the United Nations in which the future of humanity was soberly discussed. It took place from April 27-May 22, 2026. Social media, major news outlets, and other media virtually ignored the gravity and importance of the deliberations. Only the UN Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are arguably of greater significance than the NPT.

Without it there would likely be dozens of states with nuclear arsenals. Because of it there are only nine. Five – US, UK, France, China, and Russia — are members of the Treaty and India, Israel, Pakistan, and North Korea are the only nations in the world not parties to the Treaty.

The NPT arose because intelligence estimates during the 1960s reported that, by the end of the 1970s, there would be twenty-five to thirty states with nuclear weapons integrated into their national arsenals and ready for use. The Treaty entered into force in 1970. It is based on a bargain. In exchange for a commitment from the non-nuclear weapon states (today, some 186 nations) not to develop or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons and to submit to international safeguards intended to verify compliance with the commitment, the five NPT nuclear weapon states promised unfettered access to peaceful nuclear technologies (e.g. nuclear power reactors and nuclear medicine), and pledged to engage in good faith disarmament negotiations to achieve the elimination of their nuclear arsenals.

This promise of disarmament is the only expression by the five that they are legally bound to negotiate nuclear disarmament. It is reinforced by the historic 1996 Advisory Opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) which unanimously ruled that an obligation exists to pursue in good faith and conclude negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict, effective international control. This finding interpreted Article VI of the NPT as a binding requirement not to just negotiate in good faith but asserted an affirmative obligation to pursue and conclude negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament.

The Treaty had a provision that after 25 years it would be reviewed to be determined whether it would terminate, be extended for another specific period of time, or be extended indefinitely. It was agreed in 1995 that it would be extended indefinitely. However, there is an ongoing legal obligation that every five years there is a review conference to analyze compliance and establish commitments to action to fulfill the core bargain. This process should not be ignored.

A context of previous commitments that have been made and remain outstanding are worth noting. Yes, diplomatic and especially legal language is boring but remember these words are the best tools we have for preventing suffering at scales and horror beyond our capacity to imagine.

The choice is either the tools of law and diplomacy or facing the consequence of explosions giving off heat three times the face of the sun, fireballs tens of miles wide throwing tons of soot into the stratosphere rending the agricultural base of civilization destroyed, radiation spreading across the globe, and the callous use of devices which dwarf the destruction of Hiroshima or Nagasaki by magnitudes the mind cannot easily grasp.

The atomic bombs of World War II were each less than the equivalent of 20 tons of TNT. There are now bombs in the million tons ranges. If used they will not discriminate between children, elderly, or even other species. As the first generation that must decide not to be the last, we will have failed our duty to future generations and our duty to live as human beings during our brief journey together.

So, please look at the progress that has taken place and could take place again if we can generate the knowledge in the public and political will of leaders to simply save humanity from a fire of our own creation.

A bargain to gain the indefinite extension of the NPT was obtained in 1995. It was based on a Statement of Principles and Objectives for Nuclear Nonproliferation and Disarmament which “politically, if not legally, condition[ed] the indefinite extension of the treaty.” The Statement pledged to accomplish the following:

1. Complete a “Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) by the end of 1996”
2. Reaffirm the commitment “to pursue . . . nuclear disarmament”
3. Commence “negotiations for a treaty to stop” production “of nuclear bomb material[s]”
4. “[S]harply reduce global nuclear arsenals”
5. Encourage “the creation of nuclear-weapon-free zones”
6. Vigorously work to make the treaty universal by bringing in Israel, Pakistan and India, who have nuclear weapons and remain outside the treaty
7. Enhance IAEA [ Atomic Energy Agency] safeguards and verification capacity 8. Reinforce negative security assurances already given to NNWS (Non-Nuclear Weapons States) “against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons against them . . . .” (This means to not threaten to use nuclear weapons against states which have renounced nuclear weapons for themselves .)

At the first Review Conference of the Treaty in 2000 the here are some of the terms upon which unanimous agreement was obtained:

1. Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty

The importance and urgency of signature and ratification, without delay and without conditions and in accordance with constitutional processes, to achieve the early entry into force of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.

2. Nuclear Test Moratorium

A moratorium on nuclear weapon test explosions or any other nuclear explosions pending entry into force of that Treaty.

3. Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty

The necessity of negotiations in the Conference on Disarmament on a non-discriminatory, multilateral and internationally and effectively verifiable treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.

6. Elimination of Nuclear Arsenals

An unequivocal undertaking by the nuclear-weapon States to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals leading to nuclear disarmament to which all States parties are committed under Article VI.

7. The START II, START III, and ABM Treaties

The early entry into force and full implementation of START II and the conclusion of START III as soon as possible while preserving and strengthening the ABM Treaty as a cornerstone of strategic stability and as a basis for further reductions of strategic offensive weapons, in accordance with its provisions. (These treaties have been ended.)

9. Other Nuclear-Weapon States’ Actions

Steps by all the nuclear-weapon States leading to nuclear disarmament in a way that promotes international stability, and based on the principle of undiminished security for all:

– Further efforts by the nuclear-weapon States to reduce their nuclear arsenals unilaterally

– Increased transparency by the nuclear-weapon States with regard to the nuclear weapons capabilities and the implementation of agreements pursuant to Article VI and as a voluntary confidence-building measure to support further progress on nuclear disarmament

– The further reduction of non-strategic nuclear weapons, based on unilateral initiatives and as an integral part of the nuclear arms reduction and disarmament process

– Concrete agreed measures to further reduce the operational status of nuclear weapons systems

– A diminishing role for nuclear weapons in security policies to minimize the risk that these weapons ever be used and to facilitate the process of their total elimination

– The engagement as soon as appropriate of all the nuclear-weapon States in the process leading to the total elimination of their nuclear weapons

10. Excess Fissile Material

Arrangements by all nuclear-weapon States to place, as soon as practicable, fissile material designated by each of them as no longer required for military purposes under IAEA or other relevant international verification and arrangements for the disposition of such material for peaceful purposes, to ensure that such material remains permanently outside of military programmes.

13. Verification

The further development of the verification capabilities that will be required to provide assurance of compliance with nuclear disarmament agreements for the achievement and maintenance of a nuclear-weapon-free world.

In 2010 over 60 further commitments to making the world safer were made.

I recount the accomplishment of these commitments to highlight the diplomatic failure of the 2026 Conference where no final statement of agreement could be reached. We must be sober and recognize that the five states with nuclear weapons are either modernizing and thus making more usable their nuclear arsenals and/or expanding them, and the web of agreements that have constrained and contained proliferation and reduced risk have been eliminated by the actions of Russia and the US which possess over 85% of the world’s over 12,000 nuclear weapons. Threats of use are daily reported in the papers.

Treaty words and promises must mean something or else bullets become the verbs of communication. In the nuclear age this is too dangerous.

If the people of the world knew what diplomats could achieve if they were given the authority to use the skills of law and diplomacy, if they knew the daily risk of use of these devices by accident, design, or madness and the dozens of near uses by mistake, if they knew there is a better way, we could follow the path President Reagan and President Gorbachev opened which led to the reduction of the world’s nuclear arsenals by over 80%.

Today fear is an abused currency. In recent times we have seen how much can be created when hope and trust are invoked. The current downward spiral arising from the abusive arrogance of power exemplified by nuclear threats cannot lead to a better place. Our common humanity alone can bring us common security. It has been done before and it can be done again.

The 2026 NPT Review Conference demonstrated a failure by the five nuclear weapons states to work together to make the world a safer place.

Let us take the advice of Martin Luther King Jr. whose words when he won the Noble Peace Prize remain resonant today. “I refuse to accept the cynical notion that nation after nation must spiral down a militaristic stairway into the hell of thermonuclear destruction. I believe that unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word in reality. This is why right temporarily defeated is stronger than evil triumphant.‬”

That is why in the face of apathy, ignorance, fear, war, dishonesty, and violence, those of us who know the life lived without caring, compassion, sincerity and the pursuit of truth is hollow cannot turn away from the imperative that is both moral and practical. The work to fulfill the legal duty to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons and obtain their legal, verifiable elimination must continue. Working for peace is not an inconvenient truth but a blessing available to all of us.

Jonathan Granoff is President of the Global Security Institute.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

(AI image for representative purpose)

By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Jun 9 2026 (IPS)

As ongoing military conflicts in Europe and the Middle East continue with no signsof winding down, there is increasing focus on nuclear weaponsamid heightened risks of escalation.

The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI),in its annual assessment of the state of armaments, disarmament and international security, singles out key findings in its SIPRI Yearbook 2026 that “states are increasingly relying on nuclear weapons as instruments of national power—reversing decades of efforts to reduce the numbers and role of nuclear weapons—even as the risks of miscalculation and escalation are rising”.

World’s nuclear arsenals expanded and upgraded

The world’s nine nuclear-armed states—the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, France, China, India, Pakistan, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea) and Israel—continued programmes to modernize and enhance their nuclear arsenals in 2025, and most deployed new nuclear-armed or nuclear-capable weapon systems during the year, said SIPRI.

The current military conflicts include a nuclear Russia vs non-nuclear Ukraine, a nuclear US vs non-nuclear Iran and a nuclear Israel vs non-nuclear Palestine and Lebanon.

Of the total global inventory of an estimated 12, 187 warheads in January 2026, about 9,745 were in military stockpiles for potential use.

An estimated 4,012 of those warheads were deployed with missiles and aircraft and the rest were in central storage. Between 2100 and 2200 of the deployed warheads were kept in a state of high operational alert on ballistic missiles, according to the report.

Nearly all of these warheads belonged to Russia or the USA, and to a lesser extent France and the UK, but China and India may now occasionally deploy a small number of warheads mounted on missiles during peacetime.

‘Influential voices, including some world leaders, are advocating nuclear weapons as a guarantee against attack by a hostile state. But making national defence and security strategies dependent—or more dependent—on nuclear weapons could significantly increase nuclear risks,’ said SIPRI Director Karim Haggag.

‘The dangers associated with nuclear weapons are growing due to advances in weapon technology, the breakdown of nuclear arms control and heightened geopolitical tensions, among a range of other factors. At the same time, world events—not least the outbreak of conflict between nuclear-armed India and Pakistan—are challenging nuclear deterrence logic.’

Dr M. V. Ramana, Professor and Simons Chair in Disarmament, Global and Human Security, Director pro tem, School of Public Policy and Global Affairs at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, told Inter Press Service the continued modernization of nuclear weapons and the increased emphasis on nuclear weapons in military doctrines is a dangerous trend, especially when this is happening when many of the most military powerful countries in the world are resorting to attacking other countries with bombs, missiles, and drones rather than diplomatically settling differences.

“Any of these ongoing wars can easily escalate into ones where some country resorts to using nuclear weapons, which would result in destruction an order of magnitude greater than what is already being wrought by the weapons being used currently,” he pointed out.

Such a contingency becomes even more imaginable with the integration of Artificial Intelligence and other software tools to accelerate the kill chain, and possibly removing people from the process of deciding who to attack and what weapons to use, h argued.

Countries without nuclear weapons currently are also witnessing recommendations from influential spokespeople to consider developing a nuclear arsenal. Such a race can quickly spiral out of control, making it urgent that the world collectively step away from expanding nuclear arsenals and considering their use, and more generally, cease the use of militaristic violence to settle differences, said Dr Ramana.

Since the end of the cold war, says SIPRI, the gradual dismantlement of retired warheads by Russia and the USA has normally outstripped the deployment of new warheads, resulting in an overall year-on-year decrease in the global inventory of nuclear weapons. This trend is likely to be reversed in the coming years, as the pace of dismantlement is slowing, while the deployment of new nuclear weapons is accelerating.

‘The evidence is growing that the nuclear weapon states are sidelining, and even walking away from, their disarmament commitments and are instead flexing their nuclear muscles,’ said Hans M. Kristensen, Associate Senior Fellow with SIPRI’s Weapons of Mass Destruction Programme and Director of the Nuclear Information Project at the Federation of American Scientists (FAS).

‘By reaching for nuclear solutions, states are creating new risks and fuelling arms-race dynamics,’ he said.

Dr. Natalie Goldring, the Acronym Institute’s representative at the United Nations, told IPS the nine countries with nuclear weapons are engaged in extremely destabilizing behaviors — developing new weapons, increasing the size of their nuclear arsenals, abandoning arms control frameworks and verification systems, and threatening to use nuclear weapons in response to conventional weapons attacks, among other dangerous moves. Each of these choices increases risk; taken together, the potential consequences are terrifying.

Even the existence of nuclear weapons poses enormous military, economic, and environmental threats, among others. Fortunately, there’s a promising way forward — the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), which rejects the contention that nuclear deterrence and continued development of new nuclear weapons somehow make us safer.

Under the TPNW, States commit themselves to not develop, test, produce, acquire, possess, stockpile, use, or threaten to use nuclear weapons. The TPNW has 74 States Parties, with an additional 25 signatories that have not yet become States Parties. It’s arguably our best hope of breaking the cycle of continual upgrades and “modernization” of weapons, while decreasing nuclear threats.

“We don’t know whether the fact that nuclear weapons haven’t been used in wartime since the United States military dropped nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki is because of luck, skill (including deterrence), or a combination of those factors. Proponents of deterrence don’t tend to talk about the role of luck. They also don’t tend to talk about the risk of nuclear use through accident or miscalculation. That’s a short-sighted, high-risk approach. Militaries frequently have accidents; they also frequently fail to correctly calculate their adversaries’ capabilities and motivations.”

“The inherent risks of these weapons are compounded by the individuals involved. For example, US President Donald Trump is a threat to international security. He is unpredictable, prone to fits of rage, disinclined to listen to or learn from experts, and poorly informed about specific and general US military policies. And because of US nuclear weapons policy, he has the authority to order the launch of nuclear weapons without anyone else needing to confirm that order. That’s an extraordinarily dangerous situation, especially given his volatility.”

Recent events also increase risk. For example, the New START Treaty limited the number of deployed nuclear weapons for both the United States and Russia and contained useful verification provisions. Unfortunately, the treaty expired in February 2026, removing both the numerical limits on US and Russian nuclear stockpiles and the verification procedures.

Another example is the recent conclusion of the 2026 Review Conference on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. This conference continued the pattern from the previous two review conferences, as States were not even able to agree on an outcome document. More importantly, the five nuclear weapons states defined by the treaty (the US, Russia, the United Kingdom, China, and France) continue to fail to meet their commitment to disarmament under Article VI of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

“The US’s stated reliance on the idea of nuclear deterrence may have encouraged other countries to do the same. I remember being at a meeting many years ago, where a South Asian diplomat asked me why the US government was so arrogant that it thought it had a monopoly on nuclear deterrence. He said there was no reason that India and Pakistan couldn’t or shouldn’t have a similar set of strategies. TPNW provides a more sensible answer – all of these States should renounce nuclear weapons.”

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

The World Bank considers corruption a major obstacle to eradicating global poverty. The Bank officially has a zero-tolerance policy against fraud and corruption in its projects. Concerned with widespread corruption in Bangladesh, the Bank and the Government agreed on the Governance-oriented Country Assistance Strategy (GCAS) in 2006 and the Bank’s subsequent Country Partnership Strategy (CPS) ostensibly has been more selective on governance and anti-corruption (GAC) issues. Ironically, however, the Bank’s funding enables corruption. The Bank’s recent decision to advance a US$350 million loan allegedly for enhancing energy security is a glaring example.

Anis Chowdhury

The Interim Government’s White Paper on the state of the economy documented the extent of collusion and corruption in the energy sector. It noted the authoritarian kleptocratic government’s inflated demand forecast, disregarding professional projections. Thus, the installed capacity hugely exceeds actual demand. Against the peak summer demand of approximately 17,000 MW, the installed capacity is nearly 32,000 MW (or 30,000 MW considering aging infrastructure). According to the White paper, this artificially “increased capacity was driven by unscrupulous motivations” to benefit the regime’s cronies who formed a monopoly cartel in the power sector.

A series of dodgy moves facilitated unprecedented misappropriation of public money in the sector. The first was the awarding of contracts to 17 private rental plants through ‘negotiation’ in 2010, circumventing the Public Procurement Rules. The second was the Quick Enhancement of Electricity and Energy Supply (Special Provision) Act 2010, which protected energy contracts from competitive bidding and legal challenges. Such indemnity is a license for corruption, facilitating unchecked project approvals and non-transparent often dollar-denominated Power Purchase Agreements.

These agreements enabled the purchase of electricity from furnace-oil-based plants at prices 40-50% above market rates and from gas-fired plants at prices 45% above market rates, according to the Interim Government’s review committee. Initially established for a four-year period to address an emergency supply situation, the arrangement has been extended multiple times, allowing the cronies to be paid an exorbitant excess capacity charge.

The estimated total excess capacity/rental payment to the private sector from 2010-11 to 2023-24 was approximately US$2.93 billion. In the 2024-25 fiscal year alone the capacity charge was approximately US$3.42 billion, while nearly 63% of installed electricity generation capacity remained idle. According to the review committee, an estimated excess generation capacity of roughly 7,700 to 9,500 MW is causing an additional annual expenditure of US$900 million to US$1.5 billion in capacity payments.

The White Paper estimated that the rental power plants made as high as 35% profit against a standard 15%! The private sector power companies received payments from the government as rent for power plants under the guise of power purchase agreements, where corruption, rather than electricity supply, was the main objective.

Most of the operational private power plants in Bangladesh are owned/controlled by a group of five cronies. They control country’s power sector to loot vast amounts of money. While the kleptocratic regime beat the drum of “self-sufficiency” in electricity, its cronies were pillaging the state coffer.

While the cronies enjoyed excess profits through extraordinary corrupt practices, consumers paid the price. Electricity prices were increased 12 times at the wholesale level and 14 times at the retail level over 15 years during the kleptocratic regime, ostensibly to reduce losses and subsidy requirements. But neither losses nor subsidies declined.

The review committee recommended that contracts containing evidence of corruption should be cancelled immediately. It also recommended renegotiation of high-cost and unequal power purchase agreements to revise and convert them to a “take-and-pay” model following Pakistan’s example.

Instead of taking these recommended measures, the current government has chosen the path of the kleptocratic regime’s looting model. The decision to hike the electricity price will protect the fatty pockets of cronies at the expense of the common people.

The World Bank’s role

The Bank has been a prime advocate of privatisation of Bangladesh’s energy sector, citing widespread corruption and inefficiency of the publicly-owned power sector. It pushed for “unbundling” vertically integrated state monopolies, facilitating Independent Power Producers (IPPs), and mobilising private capital through financial guarantees – a strategy that supposedly should improve energy security and at the same time ease public fiscal burden.

The Bank has been providing loans ostensibly to help Bangladesh improve its energy security. But that has made the country heavily reliant on imported Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) and fossil fuels and has locked Bangladesh into steep capacity payments, draining foreign exchange reserves. Thus, the Bank’s loans allegedly for ensuring energy sector security have created a vicious circle of debt burden and plunder of public coffer through hefty capacity payments.

Instead of further advancing loans of US$350 million, the Bank should have told the government to implement the recommendations of the Interim Government’s review committee; i.e., cancel the unscrupulous agreements with IPPs and stop fiscal bleeding through unfair capacity payments. The savings from the capacity charges would have been more than enough to pay for the imports of LNG without incurring additional debt burden.

The Bank’s anti-corruption record

Why does the Bank advance loans to the sector riddled with widespread corruption? The Bank’s anti-corruption record is at best disappointing globally. The Bank once took a firm anti-corruption stance in Bangladesh when it pulled out of the Padma Bridge project alleging corruption. But it scrambled to recover its lost ground when other lenders with strategic interests came forward to fill the gap.

Evaluating the Bank’s engagement in Bangladesh during 2011-2020, the World Bank’s own Independent Evaluation Group concluded, “Despite a trend of deterioration in the country’s institutional quality and economic management, the Bank Group significantly increased financing to Bangladesh over the review period, making Bangladesh one of the largest borrowers”.

As a lending agency, the Bank’s existence depends on debtor countries’ borrowings, regardless of its lofty ideals, such as poverty reduction. A fundamental flaw in the international aid system: “the donors are more desperate to give than the recipients are to receive”. Therefore, the Bank takes a “pragmatic” approach, and tolerates corruption.

Then why did the Bank declare zero-tolerance policy against corruption? Perhaps this is because it has to satisfy the public anti-corruption sentiment in creditor nations; their citizens do not want to see their tax dollars being misappropriated.

Renowned political economist, Robert Wade conceptualises this as gesturing to appease creditor governments while acting to the contrary to appease borrower governments. Thus, the Bank’s “organised hypocrisy” enables corruption in poor borrower countries.

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 macroeconomic issues, sustainable development, international financial architecture and political economy. E-mail: anis.z.chowdhury@gmail.com; a.chowdhury@westernsydney.edu.au

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Recent geopolitical trends threaten more food crises, especially in developing countries. A new IPES-Food report urges a strategy of ‘resilient self-reliance’, proposing available opportunities to improve equity, sustainability and solidarity.

Jomo Kwame Sundaram

Geopolitics – referring to political sanctions, trade disputes, military conflicts, multilateral challenges, aid cuts, planetary heating, and corporate interests – is affecting food availability worldwide.

Corporate interests have increasingly reshaped food systems over the last half-century – promoting selective trade liberalisation, deregulation, privatisation, financialization and cost reductions, ostensibly to improve food security efficiently.

Prioritising cost and fiscal savings led to the neglect and closure of buffer stocks. Food systems became more vulnerable as price volatility worsened.

Just-in-time supply chains have also been more susceptible to geopolitical shocks, planetary heating, and market manipulation.

World Bank structural adjustment programmes made developing countries more reliant on food and input imports. Tariffs and sanctions have disrupted food supplies worldwide.

Felice Noelle Rodriguez

Wars in Ukraine, Iran and elsewhere have disrupted supplies, spiking prices, and have most hit poor food-importing countries. Powerful governments have also weaponised food supplies for political reasons, as against Cuba.

Major donor countries have cut aid, with lethal consequences for the most vulnerable, as in Sudan, Palestine, Afghanistan, and the Democratic Republic of Congo.

The legitimacy and capacity of multilateral institutions – such as the UN, World Trade Organization (WTO) and World Health Organization (WHO) – have been deliberately undermined by superpowers abusing international arrangements for their own advantage.

Food prices have been much higher since 2020, following the COVID-19 pandemic, the Ukraine and Iran wars, and other major disruptions. For instance, the Hormuz fertiliser disruptions will hurt food supply for some time to come.

Import bills have risen sharply, worsening debt burdens in poor food-importing countries. Food inflation has hurt low-income communities most, especially when governments juggle imports with debt servicing.

Corporate concentration has also worsened fertiliser and food supply and price volatility, especially hurting smaller producers. Powerful interests have also abused food crises for profit.

Geopolitics has also worsened environmental crises, as planetary heating intensifies extreme weather events, hurting crop yields and food availability.

Managing markets
To enhance food security, governments must effectively influence markets with appropriate policy instruments.

The report proposes adapting policy tools once widely used before corporate-inspired neoliberal reforms, to improve contemporary market management, supply resilience and price stability.

Public stockholdings (PSHs) involve government procurement, storage, and timely release of stocks to enhance food security, including by stabilising prices. PSHs can thus help smallholdings while improving emergency preparations.

Using minimum support prices with its Targeted Public Distribution System, India subsidises grain for two-thirds of its people, while insulating national food prices from international volatility.

Meanwhile, the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) has established a Regional Food Security Reserve to pool members’ stocks and collectively respond to crises.

Supply management
Other supply management mechanisms include production quotas, marketing boards, and import controls.

Market management has also supported other policy goals aimed at improving rural vitality, equity, food sovereignty, environmental sustainability, and democratic participation.

Thus, unlike in the US, Canada’s dairy, poultry, and egg production is subject to quotas and negotiated minimum prices to limit price volatility and stabilise farm incomes.

But policy implementation remains challenging. PSH programmes are often complex and costly, and risk leakage, corruption, and inefficiency.

Government commitments, such as trade agreements, limit policy options. Supply management measures may also raise consumer prices and favour wealthier farmers, as neoliberal critics have been quick to exaggerate.

But these policy tools can also support small-scale producers, reduce waste, strengthen national supply chains, and mitigate risks posed by highly centralised industrial agriculture.

Resilient Self-Reliance
The report promotes resilient self-reliance, requiring appropriate market management to stabilise food supplies and improve equity, sustainability, and food sovereignty.

Resilient self-reliance combines resilience (the ability to withstand and recover from shocks) with food self-reliance (the capacity to meet food needs with domestic production and cooperative trade).

The report recommends innovative trade partnerships, including international buffer stocks and cooperative regionalism, citing CARICOM’s regional food strategy.

Resilient self-reliance upholds food sovereignty norms, emphasising farmer rights, agroecology, territorial markets, and democratic governance, stressing equity, diversity, ecological balance, and flexibility.

Managing markets can also support agroecological transitions, culturally appropriate food diversity, territorial markets, and strategic reserves to cushion shocks.

Vulnerable countries, often due to earlier neoliberal reforms, typically try to reduce their susceptibility to international market volatility, but are usually less able to do so.

Market management mechanisms, agroecological practices, territorial markets, and cooperative trade arrangements can help ensure more stable and equitable food systems.

Stressing the urgent need for policy reform, the authors argue that recent geopolitics not only threatens crises but also offers new opportunities to reform food systems for greater equity, solidarity and sustainability.

For instance, the Hormuz crisis may spur developing economies to accelerate transitions to more renewable energy, thereby reducing their vulnerability to fossil fuel and other energy imports.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

 
CIVICUS discusses the interception of the Global Sumud Flotilla on its mission to bring humanitarian aid to Palestinians in Gaza with Musa Roshdy, a humanitarian activist who took part in the flotilla.

Musa Roshdy

What’s the Global Sumud Flotilla and why is it important?

The Global Sumud Flotilla was the second civilian maritime mission launched by a coalition of Palestinian solidarity organisations advocating for aid delivery to Palestinians in Gaza and the end of Israel’s illegal siege of Gaza. While it was the Global Sumud Flotilla’s second mission, this was the 39th sea-based attempt to break Israel’s illegal blockade. The Spring 2026 flotilla was organised in direct response to a call for aid put out by civil society organisations on the ground in Palestine.

On 15 April, we sailed from Barcelona with several hundred activists from dozens of countries including Brazil and Spain, determined to deliver aid to Palestinians facing severe deprivation. Our mission highlighted a crucial reality: if everyday civilians from all over the world can mobilise and get this close to establishing a humanitarian corridor, then governments can certainly do it. What’s missing is not ability or infrastructure, but political will. The flotilla represents civilian solidarity with Palestinians and a direct challenge to the illegal blockade. We were prepared for interception after Israel arrested the previous flotilla last year, but not for the scale of violence that followed.

How were you kidnapped?

I was kidnapped by the Israeli navy in the interception that occurred on 29 April, when we were sailing in international waters over 600 miles from occupied Palestine, off the coast of Crete. They attacked us in the middle of the night. We had little warning before military motorboats approached us at high speed. They pointed rifles at us and announced on a megaphone that they were the Israeli navy, they were boarding our vessel and we needed to go inside immediately or they would shoot us.

That night, the Israeli military stopped 22 of the 54 boats in the flotilla en route to Gaza. There’s no legal precedent for military action so far from Israel’s sea borders. We were in the European Union’s search-and-rescue zone, under Greek jurisdiction. But instead of protecting us, Greek coastguard ships observed Israel’s raid and then received us after we were tortured for two days.

Israel’s legal claims were absurd. They accused us of illegal entry into Israel when we were sailing to Gaza and were kidnapped en route. Most of the 180 activists were released in Greece, but two of us were abducted and brought before Ashkelon Magistrate’s Court in Israel on charges with no legal basis.

This violated fundamental principles of international law. You cannot take military action in international waters so far from your territory. You cannot abduct foreign nationals without due process. You cannot torture detainees. Yet all this happened.

Israel acts with impunity because the international community has failed to hold it accountable.

What did you endure in detention?

It was clear from the start they were trying to denigrate us for standing with Palestinians. I was forced onto my hands and knees and held in uncomfortable positions for hours. Soldiers stole my shoes, then stomped on my feet with their combat boots. I was left in just leggings and a tank top. We were held in makeshift prisons built from shipping containers. The soldiers deliberately manipulated the temperature, wetting the floor to freeze us at night, then forcing us outside under intense heat during the day. I experienced hypothermia both nights, as confirmed by a doctor who was imprisoned with me. When comrades tried to give me sweaters, soldiers took them away. At one point, a soldier pointed a rifle at my comrade and threatened to kill him for offering me a jacket in the cold.

Soldiers banged on containers and shone huge lights while we slept to keep us awake. They threw flashbangs and used force to drag people into solitary confinement. On the last day, they shot activists at point-blank range with rubber bullets. They took photographs and videos that showed us collecting our medications when they kidnapped us, but then denied us access to our medications once we were on the prison boat. Sixty-one people went on hunger strike. The food they provided, mostly bread, was insufficient to feed the rest of us, even with a third of us not eating. This cruelty is consistent with what Palestinians experience in Israeli detention, though what we experienced pales in comparison with the cruelty they face.

The Israeli military intended to deter the humanitarians sailing to deliver aid to the people of Gaza, but they were unsuccessful. People around the world recognise that Palestinians in Gaza still have an overwhelming need for aid, legal protection and solidarity. Many activists who were detained with me on 29 April set sail again a few weeks later on 14 May and were intercepted off Cyprus just days later on 18 and 19 May.

What must change internationally?

What governments must do is clear but consistently absent. They must condemn the kidnapping of their citizens. They must impose targeted sanctions against Israeli officials, not humanitarian activists. They must denormalise diplomatic relations with Israel. For instance, Croatia’s leader just refused to approve Israel’s new ambassador to Croatia due to Israel’s current policies.

The most fundamental step is an arms embargo. If we stop supplying weapons to Israel, it cannot do what it is doing. Last year, civil society in Belgium won a court case preventing the transit of military equipment to Israel. France recognises Palestine but still supplies weapons. Governments know these mechanisms exist but lack the political will to prioritise Palestinian lives over strategic interests.

Western states are also complicit in other ways. Some of our torturers had US accents. Another had a German accent. Western governments allow their citizens to join the Israeli military, which commits war crimes and kidnaps and tortures their nationals, then lets them return home without consequence.

Instead of holding Israel accountable, many western states are restricting the space for pro-Palestinian activism. In the UK, Palestine Action faced an absurd terrorism designation for blocking weapons manufacturing. In Germany, authorities banned the watermelon symbol as antisemitic.

On 19 May, as the Israeli military was kidnapping humanitarians in international waters, the United States Department of the Treasury sanctioned four leaders of the Global Sumud Flotilla, calling humanitarian aid delivery ‘pro-terror’, and blocking all access to financial institutions in the USA. The mechanism used by the USA to sanction humanitarian activists was recently deemed illegal by a federal judge when applied to Francesca Albanese, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territories. It criminalises support for Palestine and conflates it with support for terrorism.

What lies ahead for activism for Palestinian rights?

Our detention and torture were intended as a deterrent, but they failed. In practice, they had the opposite effect. Frontline work exacts a real human cost and people need time to recharge. But activism will continue because Palestinians in Gaza are still facing genocide.

What this moment teaches is that rights exist because we enact them. When everyday people learn from Palestinian courage how to stand up, call atrocities atrocities, and demand basic decency and access to life itself, movements spread across borders. People will continue to pursue humanitarian work, join future flotillas and resist authoritarian restrictions on civic space. Tactics will adapt, new symbols will emerge – as when the watermelon was adopted because Palestinians couldn’t display their flag – but the work won’t stop.

Credit: D.V. Bakke

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
Global Sumud Flotilla/Instagram
Humans of the Global Sumud Flotilla/Instagram
Musa Roshdy/Instagram

SEE ALSO
USA: sanctions weaponised against human rights CIVICUS Lens 01.Jun.2026
Gaza: ceasefire an illusion CIVICUS Lens 16.Mar.2026
Palestine: ‘The EU cannot position itself as a defender of human rights while being one of Israel’s primary arms markets’ CIVICUS Lens | Interview with 7amleh 26.Mar.2026

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Picture alliance/Anadolu/Selcuk Acar. Annalena Baerbock, President of the UN General Assembly and former German Foreign Minister.
 
Germany’s humiliating defeat in the race for a UN Security Council seat reveals the price of a foreign policy increasingly seen as hypocritical abroad.
 
The United Nations General Assembly on Wednesday elected Austria, Kyrgyzstan, Portugal, Trinidad and Tobago and Zimbabwe to the 15-member U.N. Security Council for two-year terms starting on January 1, 2027.
 
Germany, which had lobbied hard for a seat, came third for the two places contested by the Western European and Others Group, with 104 votes, against 134 for Portugal and 131 for Austria.-- Reuters

By Marcus Schneider
BEIRUT, Lebanon, Jun 8 2026 (IPS)

This is the downfall of a diplomatic superstar. Germany’s defeat in the election to the UN Security Council is the consequence of a foreign policy that has proven disastrous in recent times, failing to uphold either the values or the interests of the Federal Republic.

The fact that the second-largest contributor to the UN has been punished so severely by Portugal and Austria highlights a global loss of trust that had not yet been fully realised in political Berlin.

‘We are seen as someone who defends the rules-based order; as an advocate of international law’, Foreign Minister Johann Wampold lectured just hours before the election. And in doing so, he revealed the gulf between Germany’s self-perception and the way it is perceived internationally. It is quite clear that on this very issue – the extent to which the Federal Republic actually stands up for binding rules and international law – there has been massive damage to its reputation, which is now, for the first time, resulting in political consequences.

International law à la carte

Germany’s global alienation can be traced very precisely to the Israeli war in Gaza, which stirred up international passions like hardly any other conflict. The problem here is not merely the stance perceived as highly one-sided in large parts of the world.

It is the palpable discrepancy with Germany’s conduct in Ukraine and with the general self-image of a country that likes to parade through the world with a particularly raised moral finger.

If in one instance – quite rightly – one loudly condemns war crimes and calls on the whole world even more loudly to do the same, yet in the other case remains silent, grants the perpetrators diplomatic and political cover, and even supplies them with weapons (even though the crimes are far more serious by all objective standards), it is hardly surprising to be accused of double standards and hypocrisy.

The damage to Germany’s reputation is all the more severe because the country was regarded for decades as a safe bet in foreign policy. Like hardly any other state, the Federal Republic stood for strengthening multilateral institutions.

First, the former capital of West Germany, Bonn, then Berlin, supported the development of an international judiciary. Precisely as a lesson from its own history and in its own well-understood interest as a country at the heart of a continent once ravaged by war, Germany committed itself with vigour and generosity to peace and the balancing of interests.

It is only in recent times that the ‘reason of state’, now invoked like a mantra, has emerged, towering above all else as a foreign-policy creed imbued with an almost sacred significance.

For a long time, incidentally, it was possible to adopt a stance on the Middle East conflict that did justice both to Germany’s historical responsibility towards Israel and to the legitimate concerns of the Palestinians and Arabs. It is only in recent times that the ‘reason of state’, now invoked like a mantra, has emerged, towering above all else as a foreign-policy creed imbued with an almost sacred significance.

Foreign countries in particular, which do indeed take note of the largely self-referential German discourse, may well ask: does this raison d’état actually have any moral limits? Or does it also cover up war crimes, ethnic cleansing and what even highly reputable experts and institutions describe – to put it mildly – as genocidal conditions?

For the raison d’état is, after all, not a product of realpolitik interests, but is proclaimed as a kind of higher morality, and thus as a lesson from German history that other countries should, please, understand. Many there see rather a German failure to draw universal lessons from its own history, possibly even a kind of unwelcome historical continuity.

The self-portrayal as a ‘champion of international law’ – which was, after all, the main argument put forward for the now-failed German campaign for a seat on the UN Security Council – also seems rather odd in light of a series of statements made by the Chancellor. For instance, Friedrich Merz thanked Israel for doing the ‘dirty work’ with regard to the war of aggression against Iran — which, according to the overwhelming majority of legal opinion, is illegal under international law.

He described the legal assessment of the kidnapping of the Venezuelan head of state as ‘complex’, whilst explicitly refraining from offering lectures on international law regarding the recent Israeli-American war of aggression against Iran. As opposition leader, he had expressed outrage over the arrest warrant for the alleged Israeli war criminal Netanyahu, who is accused of serious crimes against humanity. After all, he claimed, the International Criminal Court had supposedly been established solely to ‘hold despots and authoritarian leaders to account’.

One gets the impression of a Chancellor who – speaking for a significant portion of the country’s political and media elites – seeks to replace the rule of law with a kind of higher moral order. Under this system, the supposedly ‘good’ – that is, ourselves and our democratic allies – are effectively permitted to do anything. They are no longer bound by any rules.

It is international law, if it exists at all, à la carte. Above all, it marks a departure from Germany’s decades-long belief in the civilising of international relations through their codification. From the perspective of many states that have withheld their vote from Berlin, the Federal Republic is now too unreliable a partner for the highest body of the global legal order.

Time for a reassessment

The election defeat is not merely a humiliation; it is accompanied by a real loss of influence and prestige for what is, after all, the largest and economically strongest country in the European Union. In future international crises, Berlin will now find itself at the back of the room. For Germany, this should be a moment of self-reflection at best.

What values and interests should guide our policy? In a phase of extreme geopolitical upheaval, the rise of the Global South and the US distancing itself from the world order it once imposed, Germany is dependent not on less, but on more and on resilient international cooperation.

Clearly, the international legal order is not perfect. The institutions of collective security are frequently paralysed, and, as in the past, there will be dilemmas where interests and values make it necessary to strike a balance between politics and law.

However, a complete descent into a dog-eat-dog world – where military might is the only thing that counts, where wars of aggression are launched at will, where warfare is becoming increasingly brutal, and where the international community is sinking into global cultural conflicts – cannot be in Germany’s interests.

Such a world would, sooner or later, also threaten the enduring peace within the EU. As a country with few natural resources, highly integrated economically and dependent on global trade flows, the Federal Republic is reliant on a reasonably functioning world order in which fundamental principles apply even across the boundaries of political regimes.

It is disconcerting to see how much the German government, particularly its conservative wing, celebrates its friendship with an Israeli government in which war criminals and right-wing extremists call the shots.

The restoration of Germany’s lost soft power will also necessitate a reassessment of German Middle East policy. Hardly anyone expects a triumphant switch to the camp of Palestine’s supporters. But a more measured and balanced approach would certainly be appropriate. It is disconcerting to see how much the German government, particularly its conservative wing, celebrates its friendship with an Israeli government in which war criminals and right-wing extremists call the shots.

The fact that, in the global perception, one aligns oneself so closely with a group that is knowingly threatening to turn its own country into an international pariah state defies any rational explanation. The costs of this stance are very real, and they are damaging to Germany.

The embarrassing defeat at the UN may not be a one-off blunder in this matter. In a few years’ time, the International Court of Justice will rule on the case of genocide in Gaza. Further trouble looms here. For those who, for ethical reasons, cannot bring themselves to resolve the completely untenable conditions in the occupied territories through a solution acceptable to the international community, Germany’s well-understood self-interest should tip the balance by then at the latest.

For unlike so many conflicts where Berlin’s contribution is limited to expressing deep concern, the Federal Republic would actually have influence here. So far, this influence has been used very successfully to block any European pressure on a government that wants a great deal, but certainly not a sustainable peace. As soon as that changes, two things would be on the rise again: peace — and Germany’s tarnished reputation.

Marcus Schneider heads the FES regional project for peace and security in the Middle East, based in Beirut, Lebanon. Previously, he worked for the FES as head of the offices in Botswana and Madagascar, among others.

Source: International Politics and Society, Brussels

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Credit: UN News

By Andrew Firmin
LONDON, Jun 5 2026 (IPS)

Ahead of World Environment Day, the UN General Assembly made a vital commitment to protect people from climate impacts, adopting a resolution on the climate change obligations of states. The resolution follows up on the International Court of Justice (ICJ) advisory opinion issued last year, which found that states have a legal duty to prevent activities that cause environmental harm. Most states voted for the resolution despite a concerted campaign by the Trump administration to block it.

From ruling to resolution

The ICJ ruling was a landmark moment. It made clear that climate change is a human rights issue, because the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment is essential for human rights as a whole. Its ruling means that if states breach their climate obligations, it’s an intentionally wrongful act, opening them up to legal challenges.

The ICJ case was brought by the government of Vanuatu, but it was a victory for civil society, because the campaign to seek a ruling was started by law students who formed an organisation, Pacific Islands Students Fighting Climate Change, to pressure their governments to go to the court.

ICJ advisory opinions aren’t legally binding, but their reasoning often plays a part in litigation efforts, strengthening the climate lawsuits civil society is increasingly bringing against states and corporations. It’s already being referenced in court hearings. Last year, a Brazilian judge cited it when he ordered a coalmine and thermoelectric plant to cease operations, although his ruling is currently on hold pending an appeal.

However, at the latest global climate summit, COP30, the Saudi Arabian government vetoed any reference to the ICJ ruling. Vanuatu therefore pushed for the General Assembly resolution to recognise the international legal standing of the judgment and encourage greater implementation.

Approval was far from unanimous. The Trump administration urged its allies to pressure Vanuatu to withdraw the resolution, part of its extensive campaign to defend the interests of fossil fuel corporations. It has also renounced the Paris Agreement and UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, withdrawn from an array of international climate and environmental bodies and blocked an agreement on global shipping emissions. It was one of eight states that voted against, alongside Belarus, Iran, Israel, Liberia, Russia, Saudi Arabia and Yemen, a roll call of petrostates, countries that routinely ignore international rules and their close allies. The Trump administration continues to dispute the resolution, having issued a statement questioning its legality.

Momentum and resistance

States that backed the resolution have made clear that action on the climate crisis isn’t a question of political convenience, but a matter of respecting international law.

The resolution further contributes to the growing momentum behind climate action, despite attempts by a handful of powerful states to drag the world backwards. Renewables now provide around 30 per cent of global electricity, and renewable energy investments in 2025 were more than double those in fossil fuels. The First Conference on Transitioning Away from Fossil Fuels, held in April, brought together 57 states to commit to developing national roadmaps to phase out fossil fuel production and consumption. The blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, through which a fifth of the world’s oil supplies flow, has brought further recognition of the reality that fossil fuel dependence benefits only a handful of petrostates and leaves everyone else vulnerable.

These shifts are having an impact. In May, the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change dropped its worst-case scenario for the possible effects of climate change, under which global temperatures could have risen to 4.5 degrees above preindustrial levels, because emissions cuts are making a difference.

Activists in the crosshairs

The ICJ case offers just one example of how civil society is making a crucial difference in pushing for climate action. Activists are urging ambition and resisting new fossil fuel projects. But they’re paying a heavy price. The Business and Human Rights Centre found that in 2025, three quarters of almost 800 attacks it documented against people who spoke out against businesses targeted those who mobilised on climate, environmental and land rights issues.

Ten activists from the Mother Nature Cambodia environmental group remain in jail, having been handed heavy sentences in 2024 in retaliation for their work to raise public awareness about the impacts of extractive and infrastructure projects. In Mexico, Kenia Hernandez, leader of the Zapata Vive peasant movement that protects land rights, is serving a ten-and-a-half year sentence on fabricated charges.

In Uganda, last year authorities arrested 11 activists for protesting against the construction of the East African Crude Oil Pipeline. In January, police raided the home of Harjeet Singh, one of India’s most prominent environmental activists and a vocal campaigner for a fossil fuel non-proliferation treaty. In Chile, where the government has weakened environmental laws, Indigenous women activists are experiencing intimidation, judicial harassment and violent attacks for opposing large-scale projects.

Last year the German government launched an inquiry into public funding of environmental groups, the Dutch parliament adopted a motion declaring Extinction Rebellion an ‘unlawful, society-disrupting and vandalistic organisation’ and the Portuguese government listed environmental groups in a section on terrorism of its annual security report. Authorities in Australia and New Zealand have arrested numerous people at climate and environmental protests, including in opposition to coal mining.

The UN resolution makes clear that criminalisation and violence are incompatible with states’ obligations, and everyone has a part to play in climate action. It calls on states to ‘ensure the full, meaningful and equal participation of Indigenous Peoples, local communities, people of African descent, women and girls, children and youth, persons with disabilities and people in vulnerable situations in decision-making on climate action’.

States that backed the resolution are attacking the people it demands they work with. They can’t meet their climate obligations unless they stop repressing civil society. The resolution should give fresh impetus to civil society’s calls to replace repression with partnership.

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
  

In the hard-to-reach rural community of West Pokot, Kenya, 156 young women crossed a threshold that once seemed out of reach. Their graduation from HER Lab, a workforce skills programme for marginalized rural young women, was more than a ceremony. It demonstrated the power of targeted investment, trusted local partnerships and women’s economic empowerment.

Neven Mimica

The EU’s budget crossroads

The European Union faces a critical moment as it negotiates its post-2027 Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF). While the European Commission has described the draft as its “most ambitious ever”, rising debt repayments and interest costs mean that, in real terms, funding for external action and development is stagnating or declining.

The new MFF prioritises competitiveness, industrial policy and defence. These priorities are understandable in a volatile geopolitical context, but they risk coming at the expense of development cooperation, Official Development Assistance (ODA), and gender-focused programmes — particularly those supporting Africa.

This is not abstract. Cohesion and Common Agricultural Policy budgets are shrinking, while development funding is increasingly consolidated into broader external action instruments. Member states have warned that any real increase is marginal and that adjustment costs will fall on the most vulnerable, within and beyond Europe.

Strategic partnerships: promise and pitfall

The Global Gateway Initiative, launched to mobilise up to €300 billion by 2027, with half for Africa, was presented as a new partnership model. Yet it has generated concern among civil society and parliamentarians.

Its focus on “bankable” projects and private sector-led delivery risks sidelining the actors best placed to deliver inclusive development: local communities, women’s organisations and grassroots NGOs. Civil society engagement remains inconsistent, funding flows lack transparency, and safeguards to ensure gender equality as a core objective are weak.

Strategic partnerships may therefore displace direct support for proven grassroots models, undermining the local capacity and social trust Europe claims to champion.

A global aid crisis

This policy drift comes at a dangerous moment. In 2025, global aid fell by a record margin following a 9% decline in 2024. France cut ODA by 11%, Germany by 17%, the UK reduced bilateral aid to Africa by 12%, and the United States slashed overseas aid contracts by more than 90%.

The consequences are immediate. Programmes supporting girls’ education, health services and women’s economic empowerment across Africa are being scaled back or closed.

The EU, long a champion of gender equality and development, cannot afford to follow this path. Grassroots gains are under threat. Since 2013, the Global Give Back Circle’s HER Lab programme alone has transitioned more than 800 rural young women in Kenya, into employment, entrepreneurship or further education. These are not isolated successes, but foundations of resilient societies and credible European engagement.

This is not an isolated case. The Women Action Foundation (WAF) has enabled women’s economic participation by addressing a critical but often overlooked barrier in Kenya: childcare. By establishing community-run childcare hubs alongside skills training and livelihood support, WAF has enabled women in low-income communities to enter work, launch micro-enterprises and sustain economic independence — demonstrating again that locally designed solutions can deliver high impact with modest resources.

Responsibility and opportunity

Europe’s global credibility rests on aligning values with action. As negotiations on the post-2027 MFF intensify, the EU must decide whether to uphold its commitment to development cooperation and gender equality or allow them to be diluted within broader strategic priorities.

HER Lab shows what works. Graduates are launching businesses, saving collectively, and mentoring others, with 74 per cent moving into employment, entrepreneurship or further education and unemployment falling sharply after programme completion. These are not abstract gains, but measurable outcomes.

The Global Gateway can still play a vital role if it moves beyond large scale infrastructure and meaningfully integrates grassroots, locally led and gender-focused partnerships. To remain credible, the EU must ring-fence funding for development cooperation and gender equality, make civil society co-designers of programmes, and insist on transparent impact reporting.

Beyond its own budget, it should also use its diplomatic influence to help reverse the global aid decline and mobilise private and impact investment behind women’s empowerment.

A beacon worth protecting

The graduation ceremony in West Pokot shows what is possible when civil society and local partners work directly with communities. Locally led, women-centred programmes deliver lasting impact, often with modest resources but deep social trust.

Europe’s promise to marginalised women is not made in communiqués, but in the funding and partnership decisions taken now. Investing in African women through proven, grassroots-led models strengthens communities, builds resilience from the ground up, and underpins the credibility the European Union seeks to project as a global actor.

If Europe is serious about matching its values with action, it must choose to support and scale what works. That means protecting funding for development cooperation and gender equality, and ensuring that grassroots organisations are partners of choice, not afterthoughts, in EU external action.

Neven Mimica is a Croatian politician and diplomat who served as European Commissioner for International Cooperation and Development from 2014 to 2019. He previously was Deputy Prime Minister of Croatia.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

 
CIVICUS discusses the outlook ahead of Peru’s runoff presidential election with David Hidalgo, journalist and executive director of OjoPúblico, a Peruvian digital investigative journalism outlet.

David Hidalgo

What were the first round results?

The Peruvian electoral system requires a candidate to secure over 50 per cent of the vote to win. The first round, held on 12 April, produced no clear winner, as none of the parties took over 20 per cent. Consequently, on 7 June there will be a runoff between two candidates who did not secure strong support but have merely cleared the minimum threshold to reach the runoff.

The contest between Fujimori of Fuerza Popular and Sánchez of Juntos por el Perú promises a difficult and polarised election. Meanwhile, Rafael López Aliaga of Renovación Popular, who came third trailing by some 20,000 votes, has persisted with an intense campaign alleging fraud.

It was an unusual election, as over 30 presidential candidates stood and, for the first time in over 20 years, voters also elected a bicameral parliament. The recent constitutional changes that reintroduced the Senate granted it considerable power, including the final say on whether to vacate a president by removing them via a parliamentary mechanism. In a country that has had eight presidents in 10 years, the composition of the new Senate will be just as decisive as the result of the presidential runoff.

Who are the candidates?

Keiko Fujimori is the daughter of Alberto Fujimori, who came to power in Peru in the 1990s and, two years after taking office, staged a coup and ruled autocratically throughout the decade. Fujimori left a legacy of corruption and serious human rights violations, for which he was sentenced to prison. His daughter defends his government and has built her campaign on the promise of a return to order, a message that may resonate with an electorate affected by historic levels of public insecurity.

However, she carries political baggage. She was the subject of a judicial investigation into the alleged illegal financing of her 2021 campaign, a process that made significant progress but was ultimately quashed. She is surrounded by figures who uncritically defend and recycle a hardline rhetoric that includes the passing of laws to grant amnesty for past human rights violations.

Sánchez built his campaign around the figure of ex-president Pedro Castillo, a former schoolteacher who channelled popular frustration and won the 2021 election, but lacked political preparation and ended up attempting a coup. Castillo is now in prison. Sánchez, who served as minister of trade in his government, has indicated that should he come to power, he could use presidential powers to pardon him.

His candidacy also raises concerns due to his closeness to Antauro Humala, a former military officer who spent almost 18 years in prison for leading a revolt in which four police officers were killed, and who holds radical views on various issues.

López Aliaga, a business leader and former mayor of Lima, has an equally controversial profile. Following a contentious tenure as mayor, he ran on a far-right platform that polarised the presidential campaign. He called for an insurgency when the results went against him and suggested the murder of a critical journalist. He constantly invokes conspiracy theories about an alleged state takeover by a supposed left-wing mafia and dismisses anyone who doesn’t share his views, from human rights organisations to Keiko Fujimori.

Was the first round election free and fair?

Although it was a turbulent electoral process, with incidents relating to the distribution of electoral materials and the opening of polling stations, the election was conducted within parameters that have been validated by various observation missions. There’s no evidence of a concerted effort to commit electoral fraud.

The irregularities that occurred are under investigation. The problem is that these gave rise to allegations of fraud put forward by López Aliaga and his party. Distorted versions of events were circulated to give the impression of significant impacts. For example, in some polling stations in southern Lima, electoral materials didn’t arrive on time, which led to false claims that, for this reason, a million people had been unable to vote. False information also circulated that electoral tally sheets were allegedly tampered with. It’s true there were incidents and irregularities, but there’s no evidence of fraud. This was acknowledged by the European Union’s observation mission.

The narrative of fraud is not new. Since the 2021 election, Keiko Fujimori’s party has maintained that she lost due to fraud, and has repeated this in every election since. López Aliaga adopted the same strategy this time and called for the election to be annulled.

What role have civil society and independent media played?

Disinformation and polarisation have reached historic levels, and the media have had to contend with them in situations of hostility and inequality. The landscape has been marked by constant attacks on independent media from the usual political figures and also parts of the press aligned with powerful corporate structures and others within the ecosystem of content creation for social media, which has emerged as the new arena for public debate.

At the same time, an authoritarian political alliance currently controlling the government and the main public institutions has consolidated a sort of legal stranglehold on independent media, which operate as non-profit organisations. The law on the Peruvian Agency for International Cooperation extends state control over civil society organisations working with international funding and requires their projects to be registered in advance with the state and subjected to coercive oversight, with disproportionate and unconstitutional sanctions. This law undermines editorial independence for independent media and creates risks incompatible with international press freedom standards.

On top of this, there’s a practice where some political groups accuse those who denounce state abuses, corruption and anti-rights practices of terrorism. This was particularly brutal following the social unrest that erupted after Castillo’s downfall in December 2022, when state repression of protests left around 50 people dead in southern Peru. The attacks targeted organisations supporting victims.

To tackle disinformation, used as a political tool in the electoral context, OjoPúblico, with the support of CIVICUS and in partnership with 26 organisations, launched an election coverage initiative using verification methods, in partnership with digital media outlets, radio stations and organised groups from different regions of Peru. The aim was to give the public verified information and show how disinformation undermines democracy. In six months, we generated almost three million views and over 180,000 social media interactions.

What’s the cause of instability in recent years?

The current crisis began in 2016, when Keiko Fujimori rejected the election results and pursued a sustained strategy to weaken the elected government, which culminated in it being removed from office by Congress. Since then, polarisation has deepened and Congress has taken on an increasingly destabilising role.

In this context, an unusual dynamic took hold, when parties at opposite ends of the political spectrum began acting in unison to benefit one another, halt investigations against them and advance their control over key state institutions such as the Constitutional Court, the Ombudsman’s Office and the Public Prosecutor’s Office. By appointing like-minded officials, they weakened the mechanisms of democratic control.

Added to this is the infiltration of illegal economies into politics. One example is that, according to revelations by independent journalists, 28 parties included people linked to illegal mining on their lists. This is an activity with an economic weight comparable to that of drug trafficking in past decades.

The combination of polarisation, institutional capture and the infiltration of criminal interests has sustained a system that reproduces itself election after election. Forces change and adapt, but they don’t disappear and instability persists.

What’s at stake in the runoff?

What’s at stake is democratic stability. This is regardless of who wins. Neither of the two candidates has provided sufficient guarantees that they will respect democratic principles and the rule of law. For 20 years, Peruvian voters have had to choose the lesser of two evils.

If Fujimori wins, she will seek to revive her father’s heavy-handed approach under the banner of law and order, one very much in line with the hard-right wave sweeping through Latin America. If Sánchez wins, his alliances with left-wing groups with a history of violence will open up an equally uncertain scenario.

Neither has presented a solid and convincing programme for the next five years. Their proposals rely more on slogans and spending pledges than on structural solutions to urgent problems such as record levels of insecurity, out-of-control illicit economies, and a fiscal situation undermined by disproportionate tax breaks.

But it’s also true that, given this complex scenario, this is not a choice between two equivalent risks. The dilemma facing Peruvian voters lies in understanding which candidate, if elected, will have greater power to pursue their authoritarian impulses without checks from the institutions that should restrain them.

In recent years, various international analyses have ceased to classify Peru as a democracy and now regard it as a hybrid regime. Depending on who wins, this trend will continue or intensify.

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
TikTok
Twitter
YouTube

SEE ALSO
Peru: ‘If authorities once again ignore the popular will, accumulated discontent could trigger a new outbreak’ CIVICUS Lens | Anonymous interview 26.May.2026
Peru: ‘The adult public and the mainstream press ridiculed our protests’ CIVICUS Lens | Interview with Jackelinne Ponce Paredes 07.May.2026
Peru: ‘Young people have lost their fear and realised change requires constant participation’ CIVICUS Lens | Interview with Wildalr Lozano 21.Oct.2025

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Picture alliance/abaca. Even the world’s strongest fleet is reaching its limits. Source: International Politics and Society, Brussels
 
The US failure in Iran exposes the limits of power. But it also shows a deeper loss of moral and leadership capital that may be harder to recover

By Dan Smith
STOCKHOLM, Sweden, Jun 4 2026 (IPS)

The outcome of the current Iran war is still in doubt, but one consequence is already becoming clear: it has weakened America’s capacity to project power. Many are asking who won. The more important question may be what the war has cost.

The Gulf’s geo-economic position means that this war, short and small by historic standards, will have long-lasting global effects. One of the most important concerns the future US capacity to project power. A quick look at the balance sheet helps identify how that may play out.

Gains and losses

The losses, of course, include the impact on nature, on the people of Iran and on the Gulf states. The poor in other regions will suffer as food insecurity rises. On the sidelines, Putin’s Russia has benefitted by being able to sell more oil, but its support for Iran will cost it friends and investment capital from the Gulf. Meanwhile, Ukraine has also benefitted because several Gulf states want its drones and technical support.

Of the main combatants, Israel gained some freedom of action in Gaza and Lebanon. But it is piling up problems for the future, just as it did when it escalated in Lebanon in the early 1980s. Iran has gained a kind of win by not losing while, conversely, the US loses by not winning. And this will have a serious impact on its capacity to project power in the coming years.

There are two aspects to this. One is material and concerns the ability to coerce; the other is non-material and concerns influence. The material aspect would be significant even if the war had been more successful.

The US struck over 13 000 targets in Iran in 39 days of fighting. It used up more than half its stealth cruise missiles. At current rates of production, replacing them will take five to six years. It used as many Tomahawk cruise missiles as it produced in 10 years and about two years’ worth of Patriot interceptor missiles.

The US still has huge capacity to use force, though it may have to use it differently.

Not surprisingly, some anxiety has been expressed that the US military capacity to respond to another crisis has been reduced. Equally unsurprisingly, top-level military leaders and civilian officials assure allies and adversaries alike that the US can still handle all contingencies and project its power at will.

The amount of weaponry used is emphasised by critics because they see that the US has gained nothing by it. But even if the victory the President has frequently proclaimed were real, the weapons would still have been used. If reduced weapon stockpiles cause a problem, it is a problem regardless of the war’s outcome.

Both the concern and the complacency are overstated. The US still has huge capacity to use force, though it may have to use it differently if the President sees a new need or opportunity for military action. It remains a military superpower, but one with thinner margins, more difficult trade-offs and less freedom to respond simultaneously to crises in different regions.

The non-material aspect is even more significant. Influence takes many forms — political, economic and cultural. One source of political influence is military superiority. States that are seen as overwhelmingly powerful often gain friends and persuade adversaries to give way. The Gulf war, however, has exposed the limits of that logic.

President Trump is not wrong when he praises US military prowess. But his boasts during the Iran War have only drawn attention to the tightly limited utility of all that force. Iran’s military capacity has been damaged, and the economy is in terrible condition, but the regime is still in power, with a harder line and tighter control. When the ceasefire started, it still had 70 per cent of its pre-war stock of missiles and has doubtless produced more by now.

The US is no closer than it was the day before the war to getting Iran’s enriched uranium out of the country. It can only do that with Iranian agreement, which will take time and require US concessions over sanctions. And whereas shipping moved freely through the Strait of Hormuz before the war, now it does not, and Iran has turned that into a bargaining chip.

Trapped again

The lesson is that superior force can knock things down and kill people, but does not necessarily give its holder the power to achieve objectives. The same lesson is unfolding in another theatre of operations: in the American campaign against drug traffickers, there have been over 60 attacks on small boats in the Caribbean and Pacific, killing more than 200 people. According to the latest studies, this has had no effect on the street price and availability of cocaine in US cities.

The problem in the Gulf is that Trump has taken his government into a hole from which it is hard to see a way out. We have encountered this before. It is a characteristic dilemma of a great power facing a resilient foe. Think not just Iran, but Ukraine. Think Vietnam.

In March 1968, at the height of the Vietnam War, as American opinion began turning decisively against it, Theodore Sorensen, President Kennedy’s former speechwriter, depicted the US predicament as being trapped in a six-sided box, which he described with three simple sentences: America’s military primacy could not produce victory, while its political primacy made withdrawal humiliating.

It could not impose its will on South Vietnam or break the will of North Vietnam. Escalation risked Chinese or Soviet intervention, while serious negotiation meant accepting the possibility of a Communist South Vietnam.

It is not hard to apply the underlying analysis to the US against Iran. Some translation is needed: the war is unwinnable but withdrawal is humiliating; no ally is giving meaningful help and the enemy is too stubborn; all-out escalation is unthinkable, while good-faith negotiation means acknowledging that the war was wrong from the outset.

Hedging against US unreliability will be part of Europe’s and other US allies’ long-term policies for years to come

The US never managed to break out of that box in Vietnam and will probably be unable to do so in the Gulf. This failure – there is no other word for it – is draining the US capacity for strategic leadership. Allies are faced with reckless behaviour, frequent disregard and contempt, demands to back actions on which they were not consulted and which they oppose, inconsistent and misleading statements, and a war without strategy, legality or ethics.

It is hard to see how the US will regain the moral capital and leadership capacity it has lost this year. More bluster will not do it. Nor will resuming the war or coming to an agreement that makes major concessions to Iran. And it is currently impossible to see why Iran would make concessions to the US.

The United States remains the most powerful military actor in the world. But even the world’s strongest military cannot automatically translate force into political success. The danger is that future leaders continue to believe otherwise.

A strategically astute president who does not casually abuse and threaten allies may emerge in the future. But if the US electorate can do it twice, it can do it a third time — if not with Trump, due to age and the constitution, then with Vance, Rubio, Hegseth or someone else.

Accordingly, hedging against US unreliability will be part of Europe’s and other US allies’ long-term policies for years to come, maybe forever. As they become less dependent on the US, they will also be less compliant. In a few years, the US can restore much of its material power. Its non-material power will grow back only slowly, if at all.

Therein lies the most serious risk: that Trump, or a future leader, continues to believe against all the evidence that force equates to power, and uses it destructively, desperately and pointlessly.

Dan Smith is a Senior Fellow at the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research (UNIDIR) and conducts research on issues relating to peace, security and international politics, with a focus on the Middle East and North-East Asia.

Source: International Politics and Society, Brussels

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Credit: Dmitriy Prayzel / shutterstock.com

By Jordan Ryan
Jun 3 2026 (IPS)

 
The joint declaration issued by Russia and China on 20 May, Joint Declaration of the Russian Federation and the People’s Republic of China on the Establishment of a Multipolar World and a New Type of International Relations, has been read in sharply different ways. Some welcome its language of sovereign equality, multilateralism and a UN-centred international order. Others dismiss it as legal rhetoric deployed in bad faith. Both responses miss the more important point.

The declaration matters less for what it promises than for what it reveals. It shows how the language of the United Nations Charter has become a field of political struggle. Russia and China are challenging parts of the existing order in different ways. They are competing to shape the meaning of that order and to present themselves as its more authentic defenders.

That is why the declaration should be read closely. Its appeal to sovereign equality, indivisible security and the democratisation of international relations is not incidental. It is a claim to normative authority. The text seeks to occupy the language of legitimacy at a moment when the authority of the United Nations itself has weakened.

The gap between that language and the conduct of its authors is striking, though the two cases are not identical. Russia is waging a war in Ukraine in open violation of the principles it invokes. China presents a more complicated challenge. It should be criticised for internal repression, coercive pressure on Taiwan, its rejection of the 2016 arbitral ruling on the South China Sea, and its continuing support for Russia despite Moscow’s aggression. Yet China has also shown a degree of strategic restraint and continues to frame its global role in terms of sovereignty, non-interference and a state-based international order. That distinction does not absolve Beijing. It does suggest that any serious strategy for UN renewal should test China’s stated commitment to non-aggression and multilateral restraint against its actual conduct, especially in the South China Sea. None of this removes the hypocrisy. It makes the diplomacy more important.

Still, the erosion of the United Nations system cannot be laid only at the feet of Moscow and Beijing. Western governments have also weakened the authority of the rules they claim to defend. Broad unilateral sanctions on Venezuela were criticised by the United Nations Special Rapporteur on unilateral coercive measures for their severe humanitarian impact and for undermining the principles they purported to uphold. In February 2026, the Secretary-General condemned the use of force by the United States and Israel against Iran, and the subsequent retaliation by Iran across the region, as a military escalation that undermined international peace and security. When major powers treat Charter constraints as optional, they invite others to do the same.

This matters because hypocrisy alone does not explain the moment. Great powers have always said one thing about rules and done another in practice. The deeper problem is that the authority to define legitimate state conduct has weakened. The Charter remains the best available foundation for international order, but the institutional machinery built around it no longer commands the same confidence or compliance.

That is what gives the Sino-Russian message traction beyond its authors. Its critique of Western hegemony resonates across much of the Global South because it draws on real grievances. Many states remain underrepresented in global decision-making, face conditionality in external partnerships and see an international economic order that has not delivered equitable development. Moscow and Beijing are exploiting those frustrations, though not always in the same way and not with identical records under the Charter.

At the same time, many governments are watching carefully what Sino-Russian partnership actually offers in practice. Some Belt and Road projects have generated concerns about debt sustainability and strategic dependency, with Sri Lanka’s Hambantota port frequently cited, even if interpretations of that case differ. In parts of Africa, Russia’s growing security footprint through Wagner’s legacy structures and successor arrangements has reinforced authoritarian partners while securing access to strategic resources. The language of emancipation can easily mask new forms of dependency.

For the United Nations, this is not just a messaging problem. It is a structural one. The Security Council veto produces paralysis in the crises where collective action is most needed. Financing depends on obligations that major powers treat as politically negotiable. The relationship between the United Nations and regional organisations remains uneven and vulnerable to manipulation. A system designed in 1945 for 51 member states has not adapted adequately to a far more plural and contested world.

That is why the next Secretary-General will need more than administrative skill. The task is not simply to defend the Charter against selective or cynical misuse. It is to rebuild political confidence that the institution can apply its principles with greater consistency, broader legitimacy and stronger operational capacity. That will require coalition-building across regions, especially with states that want reform, without abandoning multilateral restraint.

The Sino-Russian declaration therefore sets a test that extends well beyond Russia and China. The question is not whether its authors believe in the Charter in the same way or violate it in identical forms. They do not. The real question is whether the United Nations still has the political authority and institutional capacity to make the Charter matter.

Related articles from this author:
Governing the Ungovernable
The Secretary-General This Moment Demands
From Reform to Reinvention: Reimagining the United Nations for the 21st Century
The UN’s Withering Vine: A US Retreat from Global Governance

Jordan Ryan is a member of the Toda International Research Advisory Council (TIRAC) at the Toda Peace Institute, a Senior Consultant at the Folke Bernadotte Academy and former UN Assistant Secretary-General with extensive experience in international peacebuilding, human rights, and development policy. His work focuses on strengthening democratic institutions and international cooperation for peace and security. Ryan has led numerous initiatives to support civil society organisations and promote sustainable development across Africa, Asia, and the Middle East. He regularly advises international organisations and governments on crisis prevention and democratic governance.

This article was issued by the Toda Peace Institute and is being republished from the original with their permission.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

By Oxfam
BRUSSELS, Belgium, Jun 3 2026 (IPS)

Governments are falling 90 percent short of adaptation finance targets and leaving people in climate-vulnerable communities drastically under-equipped to cope with the devastating impacts of climate change, Oxfam warns ahead of Bonn climate talks (8-18 June).

According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), as of 2024, governments mobilized $31 billion in adaptation finance – around 90 percent short of the $310 billion to $365 billion projected needs for developing countries by 2035. To bridge this gap, rich countries would have to increase their adaptation financing tenfold.

The total climate finance of $137 billion reached in 2024 is also just a fraction of what countries need to transition away from fossil fuels. This shortfall highlights a stark global inequality, that those who have done the least to cause the climate crisis are being hit by the heaviest damage and short-changed from the funding promised to help them deal with it.

People living across the Global South, women, girls and Indigenous groups are overwhelmingly bearing the costs of environmental devastation.

Meanwhile, super-rich corporations and individuals — largely based in the Global North — have seen their wealth skyrocket. The profits of the six biggest fossil fuel corporations are projected to hit $94 billion in 2026, continuing to attract mega-investors. Almost 60 percent of billionaire investments are classified as being in high climate impact sectors, such as mining or oil and gas corporations.

“For too long, governments have coddled a super-rich elite whose huge emissions and dirty investments in polluting industries are throttling climate action. At Bonn, leaders must tackle this unequal concentration of wealth and power. It’s time to make rich polluters pay, and channel that wealth into accessible, participatory climate finance in a way that reaches the communities who need it most,” said Mariana Paoli, Oxfam International’s Climate Lead. 

Recent polling commissioned by Oxfam across seven countries found that approximately two-thirds (68 percent) of the public support increasing taxes on the profits of large oil and gas corporations to help fund a fair transition to renewable energy.  

Oxfam urges governments to: 

• Slash the emissions of the super-rich and make the richest polluters pay, through taxation on extreme wealth, excess profits taxes on fossil fuel corporations, and a carbon capital levy on investments in polluting sectors. 
• Remove the financial barriers blocking a Just Transition by cancelling debt, phasing out fossil fuel subsidies and overhauling a financial architecture systemically skewed against Global South countries. 
• Substantially increase climate finance to support communities on the frontlines of the climate crisis. This means fulfilling the $300 billion annual target agreed at COP29, including tripling funding flows specifically for adaptation, and substantially increasing resources to address loss and damage. 

Footnote
According to the OECD, in 2024, wealthy countries mobilized $137 billion in total climate finance to support climate action in low- and middle-income countries. Of this, $102 billion came in the form of public finance, mostly as loans. Public finance for adaptation amounted to $32 billion.

The UNEP Adaptation Gap Report 2025 calculates that the cost of adaptation finance needed in low- and middle-income countries is $310 billion per year in 2035, when based on modelled costs. When based on extrapolated needs expressed in Nationally Determined Contributions and National Adaptation Plans, this figure rises to $365 billion a year.

Oxfam research finds that six of the biggest fossil fuel companies (Chevron, Shell, BP, ConocoPhillips, Exxon and TotalEnergies) are projected to earn $2,967 a second in profits in 2026. Download the methodology note.

“Climate Plunder: How a powerful few are locking the world into disaster”, the executive summary and the methodology note. The report is also available in Spanish, French and Portuguese.

The global poll, conducted by market research company Norstat in April 2026, gathered responses from people in seven countries (UK, France, Brazil, Turkey, Australia, the Netherlands and Colombia).

The polling also showed that support for taxing oil and gas corporations to fund the renewable energy transition crossed party lines. In six of the countries, there were more far-right respondents who supported such a tax, than those who opposed it.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Credit: Adobe Stock Photo / Source: UN News
 
A staggering 55 million people across West and Central Africa are expected to suffer crisis levels of hunger, or worse, during the lean season from June to August as funding cuts to humanitarian operations continue amid rising violence and displacement. UN News January 2026

By Kester Kenn Klomegah
MOSCOW, Jun 3 2026 (IPS)

Within the framework of the Expert Council on Africa at Russia’s State Duma, the lower chamber of parliamentarians, during its annual round-table conference, held in late May 2026, focused concretely on food security in Africa.

The Expert Council has further outlined a strategic roadmap to raise collaboration in the sphere of food security, emphasizing the necessity to address policy inconsistencies that have generally dominated Russian-African relations since the Soviet collapse.

Under the chairmanship of Deputy Speaker of the State Duma, Alexander Babakov, the council’s round-table session on—Russian-African cooperation in the field of ensuring food security, introduction of closed cycle technologies in agricultural and bioeconomy projects—was held in the State Duma.

Opening the meeting, Alexander Babakov, noted the importance of continuing cooperation with African countries already in the new convocation of the State Duma, to which elections will be held in September 2026.

“I am sure that right from the beginning of the work of the new convocation, the theme of cooperation between Russia and African countries will work as an example for circulation and use in other areas,” he said.

A member of the Committee on the Development of the Far East and the Arctic, deputy chairman of the Expert Council on Africa, Nikolai Novichkov, in his speech stressed the importance of a gradual transition to trade with African high-tech countries. “Our African partners are interested in producing and processing food locally, including earning a living on it,” the parliamentarian stated.

The Director of the Department of Partnership with Africa at the Russian Foreign Ministry, Tatiana Dovgalenko, drew attention to the continued importance of the humanitarian component of Russian-African cooperation, which, despite efforts, “unforeseen including and along the lines of specialized UN agencies, the number of hungry people in the world, has been growing over the past few years.” According to Dovgalenko, the food crisis is localized in about 10 countries, four of which are in Africa.

There are still a few points to underline here: Russia is committed to supporting African countries in need of humanitarian assistance, while strengthening the prospects of developing and expanding aspects of bilateral cooperation. Russia has offered many African countries with food supplies over the years.

As traditionally expected, Africa can leverage for Russia’s food supplies. It is essential to acknowledge that serious efforts are being directed at coordinating mechanisms in advancing political dialogue and pursuing other sectoral cooperation with African partners.

At the same time, Foreign Ministry’s records show stages of supporting food security and African beneficiaries such as Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Mali, Mozambique, Madagascar, Libya, Sudan and South Sudan, and Zimbabwe. Mostly, ethnic-conflicting African countries are the beneficiaries, and many reasons are assigned for Russia’s engagement in this aspect of diplomacy.

Reasons for Development Assistance

Russia’s humanitarian and development assistance to Africa is primarily driven by its geopolitical ambitions to expand its global influence, counter Western isolation, secure access to vital natural resources, and foster dependency among African nations.

Countering Western Influence: Russia seeks to position itself as an alternative to Western powers, often advocating for a “multipolar world” and non-interference in the domestic affairs of African states. This approach is particularly appealing to authoritarian regimes on the continent.

Securing Diplomatic Alliances:
African nations represent a significant voting bloc at the United Nations General Assembly. Humanitarian outreach, such as free delivery of grains, helps Russia secure diplomatic support, strengthen food security and votes on key international resolutions.

Leveraging “Grain Diplomacy”:
By providing humanitarian food aid, Moscow mitigates the effects of the global food shortages and supply chain disruptions caused by its own military actions in Ukraine. It uses these provisions to maintain African countries within its geopolitical orbit.

Food Aid Deals:
Aid serves as an entry point for deeper strategic ties. Russia utilizes this assistance as part of its diplomacy to project an image of a benevolent global power. Funding and providing food assistance helps build long-term relationships with the continent’s future leaders and local populations.

As first deputy chairman of the Committee on International Affairs, Alexei Chepa noted at the State Duma, the food crisis and a number of other serious threats on the African continent are today exacerbated by a complex international, United States and Israel vs. Iran causing rising energy prices worldwide.

“This has also reflected on the cost of fertilizers that needed to be purchased previously. Even if prices fall in a few months, the yield still won’t. And there will be problems in Africa. At the same time, we understand that population growth in the coming years will be at Africa’s expense,” Chepa underlined in his contribution at the meeting.

Chepa also mentioned the special role of security enhancement in Africa, including in countering extremism and terrorism.

As part of the continuation of the work of the roundtable to promote cooperation with African countries in ensuring food security, the introduction of closed-loop technologies in agricultural and bio economics projects was discussed. As traditional procedure, some recommendations are addressed to the Government of the Russian Federation.

In addition to representatives of the State Duma, the State Duma’s deputy chairman Alexander Babakov, brought also representatives of ministries, related-agencies and departments, and the expert community to develop concrete steps directed toward raising connectivity between Russia and Africa, the main reason for establishing the State Duma’s Expert Council on the Development and Support of Comprehensive Partnerships with African Countries.

Kester Kenn Klomegah focuses on current geopolitical changes, foreign relations and economic development-related questions in Africa with external countries. Most of his well-resourced articles are reprinted in several reputable foreign media.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

A street in Beirut, Lebanon, where civilian infrastructure has sustained significant damage. Credit: Pexels/Jo Kassis

By Maximilian Malawista
UNITED NATIONS, Jun 2 2026 (IPS)

Last week on May 28, the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) issued an evacuation order to Lebanese civilians ordering them to move north of the Zahrani River, approximately 25 miles from the Israeli border, and roughly 20 percent of the Lebanese territory. These new escalations bring the displaced population to more than 1.3 million people, including more than 300,000 of those people being children. 1.3 million people represents approximately 1/4th of the nation’s population of 5.3 million.

On Friday May 29th, the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) said the following regarding the current situation of displacement: “Just in the past 48 hours, renewed displacement orders by the Israeli Defence Forces have affected hundreds of thousands of people south of the Zahrani River, including in the cities of Tyre and Nabatieh. Collective shelters in Tyre and Saida in the South Governorate are reportedly full and can’t take in more people.”

On Friday May 22nd, the UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) observed a continuation of Israeli military aggression along with Hezbollah attacks on Israeli force mission areas. In the following week, on Monday May 25th, the largest number of airspace violations at 91 occurrences, along with 399 firing incidents by the IDF were recorded. Additionally, on May 27th, 670 trajectories of projectiles were reported, making this the highest since the cessation of hostilities on April 17th. The IDF has also been attributed to separate incidents of firings on Saturday May 23rd and Sunday May 24th, at approximately 160 per day, with about 16 launches of projectiles by Hezbollah; along with large-scale engineering works, logistical traffic, and armored vehicle convoys through this escalation by the IDF.

Between May 21 and May 24, the World Health Organization (WHO) recorded 8 health workers killed and 45 injured, with 25 medical staff just on May 23rd being injured at the Hiram Hospital in the South governorate following airstrikes.

“We reiterate that attacks on health workers and health facilities are unacceptable. All parties to conflicts must immediately stop them and ensure protection for healthcare,” said Deputy Spokesperson for the Secretary-General, Farhan Haq.

As of March 2026, a flash appeal has been submitted by the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR), acting as a funding instrument to garner USD 308.3 million to provide life-saving assistance and protection targeting up to 1 million people. Within this appeal, USD 61 million is planned to be allocated to Multi-purpose Cash Assistance (MPCA), $56 million to Food Security & Agriculture, $42.5 million to Shelter, and $40 million and $37 million to WASH and Health, along with other allocations to much needed life-saving sectors. Prior to these latest advancements, an estimated 3 million people were already requiring assistance, with 961,000 people facing acute food insecurity.

Although conditions are worsening, all ports remain operational and accessible, according to the latest report from Logistics Cluster. Airspace is open as well, however humanitarian and commercial access remains limited. Also, according to the same report from Logistics Cluster, many roads and bridges in southern Lebanon remain not passable or closed, limiting crucial movements of goods into the most affected areas of hostilities.

OCHA told Inter Press Service that these constraints have been “complicating planning and limiting sustained operations, even as partners continue to reach people where access permits.”

As of May 2026, fuel prices are higher in Lebanon than any other state in the region, besides Pakistan. Since February 28th 2026, the following increases have been recorded:

The estimated fuel increase by country since February 28th, 2026. Credit: Maximilian Malawista

OCHA added that “Rising costs are adding further pressure on an already fragile humanitarian response. Fuel prices have surged significantly, driving up transport and production costs, while the cost of basic food items has also increased.” OCHA warned that these trends are “undermining people’s ability to afford essentials”, and are “further complicating the delivery of humanitarian assistance.”

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

By External Source
Jun 2 2026 (IPS)

 
2025 was one of the three hottest years ever recorded.

The years from 2015 to 2025 were the hottest eleven years on record.

The planet is now about 1.43 degrees Celsius warmer than the pre-industrial average.

The oceans are absorbing heat at a staggering rate — about eighteen times humanity’s annual energy use each year over the last two decades.

Sea levels remain near record highs.

And for people, the risks are immediate.

The IPCC estimates that 3.3 to 3.6 billion people live in contexts highly vulnerable to climate change.

The World Health Organization projects that, between 2030 and 2050, climate change could cause about 250,000 additional deaths each year from undernutrition, malaria, diarrhoea and heat stress alone.

Yet the gap between promise and action remains wide.

UNEP says current policies put the world on track for 2.8 degrees Celsius of warming this century.

Even full delivery of new national climate pledges would still leave warming at around 2.3 to 2.5 degrees.

This is why June 5th matters.

World Environment Day was established by the UN General Assembly in 1972 and is led by UNEP.

In 2026, World Environment Day is focused on climate action.

Azerbaijan will host the global commemoration in Baku, under the national campaign message:

“Inspired by Nature. For Climate. For Our Future.”

UNEP’s global call is simple:

Act #NowForClimate.

The message is not that the future is lost.

It is that choices still count.

Cleaner energy.

Stronger early warning systems.

Smarter cities.

Protected ecosystems.

Restored land.

Every action reduces risk.

Climate action is not only an environmental issue.

It is a health issue.

A development issue.

A justice issue.

And a survival issue.

This World Environment Day, June 5th, join the movement.

Act now.

Speak up.

Choose change.

For nature.

For climate.

For our future.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Male employees were working in a paper factory in Thimpu, Bhutan. Accession to WTO will enhance business opportunities for local SMEs. Credit: Unsplash/Bradford Zak

By Jing Huang, Mikiko Tanaka and Rajan Ratna
THIMPU, Bhutan, Jun 2 2026 (IPS)

Bhutan’s decision to restart its accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO) comes at an important junction. Since graduating from Least Developed Country (LDC) status in 2023, the country is entering a new phase of development, which requires stronger competitiveness, deeper global engagement and greater economic resilience.

Yet Bhutan’s experience is not only about joining a global institution. It also offers an important lesson on why South-South cooperation matters in an increasingly uncertain world.

Global trade today is becoming more fragmented and unpredictable. Geopolitical tensions, supply chain disruptions and shifting trade alliances are reshaping the engagement of countries with the global economy. For small developing economies, the challenge is particularly complex.

Accessing international markets is no longer only about expanding exports, it is also about navigating changing rules, building institutional readiness and strengthening resilience against external shocks.

Based on this, the decision to restart the WTO accession from Bhutan is particularly significant. After years of standstill, Bhutan has resumed discussions on the terms of accession under the WTO Working Party process.

For a small economy transitioning beyond LDC status, WTO accession represents an opportunity to strengthen long-term economic foundations, improve investor confidence and integrate more effectively into regional and global markets.

However, the WTO accession is never easy, particularly for small economies with limited institutional capacity. Negotiating accession requires the readiness of the domestic market and industry, but also government capacities to navigate highly technical issues and in-house analysis for self and competitors’ assessments, from market access commitments and regulatory reforms to notification obligations and legal frameworks.

Officials must understand not only the rules themselves but also the practical implications of commitments that will shape national economic policy for years to come.

For many developing countries, the most useful policy lessons often come from peers facing similar realities. Countries across the Global South frequently operate under comparable constraints: limited institutional resources, competing development priorities and the need to balance openness with domestic policy space.

In these contexts, learning from neighbouring and comparable economies can often be more practical and relatable than relying solely on textbook models or distant examples. Bhutan’s WTO preparations offer a good example of the approach can work in practice.

In response to a request from the Royal Government of Bhutan, the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP) through its Subregional Office for South and South-West Asia, partnered with Indian think tanks to support Bhutanese officials as they prepare for WTO accession.

Rather than focusing solely on theoretical understanding, the initiative emphasized practical learning, negotiation experiences and peer exchanges with experts and former trade negotiators who had worked directly on WTO processes.

The approach responded directly to Bhutan’s needs. Officials serving on Bhutan’s WTO Negotiating Team and Technical Working Groups were able to deepen their understanding of complex accession issues, including market access negotiations, institutional reforms, scheduling commitments and post-accession obligations. More importantly, they engaged directly with practitioners who understood the realities of policymaking and negotiations in developing country settings.

Peer learning also brought an important practical pillar. Discussions moved beyond legal provisions and technical terminology to focus on real experiences what challenges emerge during accession, how governments navigate difficult trade-offs and what institutional arrangements work in practice.

Exchanges on economic diversification, including lessons related to Special Economic Zones (SEZs), also offered useful reflections for Bhutan as it considers pathways to sustainable economic growth.

At a time when multilateralism faces growing pressures and geopolitical divisions increasingly influence trade relations, regional cooperation and peer learning are becoming more important. Small and developing economies often face similar structural constraints and often attempt to navigate major transitions in isolation.

Trusted regional partnerships can help countries access practical expertise, reduce learning costs and build confidence in undertaking complex reforms.

Bhutan’s WTO journey reminds us that successful South-South cooperation is not simply about technical assistance or transferring knowledge. It works best when countries define their own priorities, partnerships respond to genuine demand and peers contribute practical experiences with humility and mutual respect.

As Bhutan moves forward in its WTO accession process, its experience offers an important lesson for the wider region. In a fragmented and uncertain global economy, developing countries are often strongest when they learn from one another.

South-South cooperation may not remove every challenge, but it can help countries navigate difficult transitions with greater confidence, stronger institutions and more practical solutions.

Jing Huang is Economic Affairs Officer, ESCAP Subregional Office for South and South-West Asia; Mikiko Tanaka is Head of ESCAP Subregional Office for South and South-West Asia & Rajan Ratna is Coordinator, DAKSHIN-Global South Centre of Excellence.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Credit: Adobe stock. Source Africa Renewal, United Nations

By Cristina Duarte
UNITED NATIONS, Jun 1 2026 (IPS)

Africa holds 9 per cent of global renewable freshwater, over 600 gigawatts of untapped hydropower potential, and between 60 and 65 per cent of the world’s uncultivated arable land.

Its workforce is the youngest on the planet. Its consumer market will reach 2.5 billion people by 2050. Together, these constitute every production factor that global water, energy and food systems will need in the coming decades.

This is not a continent of scarcity. It is a continent of strategic abundance, and the African Union’s decision to anchor its 2026 theme in water and sanitation signals that the continent’s leadership is ready to govern it as such.

Consider what governed abundance looks like. The Grand Inga Dam alone could generate twice the output of the Three Gorges and electrify industries across Central, Southern and West Africa. The Lesotho Highlands Water Project already proves that African-engineered, transboundary water infrastructure can operate at scale and supply major urban economies.

Expanding managed irrigation from 3.7 per cent of sub-Saharan Africa’s arable land (the lowest figure in the developing world) to even 10 per cent within a decade would transform food security, generate millions of jobs across agricultural value chains, and cut the continent’s exposure to rainfall variability.

Every one of these investments is within Africa’s technical reach. The engineering is known. The water is there. The land is there. The workforce is there.

The question is governance. On this, Africa must be frank with itself: the prevailing approach does not match the scale of the opportunity. Governments and donors have treated water as a social service delivery challenge, a matter of boreholes and latrines managed project by project, rather than as productive infrastructure on the same footing as roads, ports and energy grids.

A hand pump installed without a maintenance budget is not development. A pit latrine built without connection to a sanitation system is not development. These interventions may register as progress on a results framework, but they do not transform economies. They are consumables, not assets.

The evidence of this mismatch is plain. Less than half of Africa’s population, or 41 per cent, has access to safely managed drinking water. Twenty-three million primary school-age children attend class hungry. Some 429 million Africans live in extreme poverty, a number projected to remain above 400 million in 2030.

These figures do not describe a resource-poor continent. They describe a governance model that treats water as charity rather than strategy, and a “build, neglect, rebuild” cycle that consumes scarce capital without producing lasting systems.

Africa can break this cycle, and I propose three shifts that would change the trajectory.

First, adopt Strategic Asset Management as a continental doctrine.

Dams, irrigation networks, urban treatment plants and transboundary systems are assets with 50- to 100-year lifespans. They demand sustained institutional stewardship, not five-year project horizons. Govern them across the full lifecycle, from planning through maintenance and renewal, with climate adaptation at every stage.

The build, neglect, rebuild pattern ends when African governments treat water systems as national infrastructure: as permanent assets to maintain, not temporary projects to hand over.

Credit: Adobe Stock

Second, launch a continental irrigation expansion.

South Asia irrigates 41 per cent of its arable land. Sub-Saharan Africa irrigates 3.7 per cent. Closing even a fraction of that gap within a decade would generate employment, build agricultural value chains, strengthen food sovereignty and reduce dependence on imported food. Water without irrigation grows nothing. Land without water feeds no one. Managed irrigation is the fastest route from endowment to economic value.

Third, build enforceable cooperative governance for shared basins.

Ninety per cent of Africa’s surface water crosses at least one national boundary. The Nile, the Niger, the Congo, the Zambezi: these are regional systems that demand regional governance. Africa already has models that work. The Senegal River Basin Development Organisation, has managed a four-country transboundary system for half a century. The task is to make cooperative governance the norm, not as diplomatic courtesy but as a strategic requirement for regional stability and integration.

Financing these shifts requires Africa to lead with its own resources. Closing the water security gap demands between $50 billion and $64 billion annually, according to the AU High-Level Panel and the African Development Bank respectively. The primary financing base must be domestic: reform tariffs progressively, protect maintenance budgets, stop the leakages, and treat water investment with the seriousness that roads and energy grids receive.

Africa must also mobilise international climate finance, which the continent has chronically underutilized, for integrated water investments. And African Governments should not consider the approval of foreign land deals without mandatory water-impact assessments. African Governments need to address land management and governance in an integrated fashion with water governance. Every crop grown on a foreign-leased African field and exported is a transfer of virtual water off the continent, water that was never priced, never accounted for, never governed. Land and water are inseparable. To alienate one is to alienate the other.

The world will develop Africa’s water and land in the coming decades. That process is already under way. Wealthier nations, facing their own water and food constraints, understand the arithmetic of African abundance and are positioning accordingly. The only question is whether this development happens on African terms or someone else’s.

Let me end on a somber note. The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) will not be achieved in Africa by 2030. Honesty demands we say so. But the generation after 2030 can inherit something different, if Africa’s leadership chooses now to govern water as what it already is: a driver of economic transformation, a foundation of peace, and the most important asset the continent holds in trust for its children.

Africa’s water is its future. The question is, will Africa govern it, or will it be governed by others?

Cristina Duarte is the Under Secretary-General for the Office of the Special Advisor on Africa.

Source: Africa Renewal, United Nations

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

‘As record heat sweeps the world, the climate crisis is no longer a warning for the future, but a reality of the present.’

James Alix Michel

Across the globe, records are not just being challenged; they are being shattered.

In the United Kingdom and Ireland, London has reached an unprecedented 35.1°C, breaking all-time May records. Wales has climbed to 32.9°C, while Ireland recorded a remarkable 28.6°C in County Clare. Continental Europe is faring no better. France has seen temperatures rise to 36°C in the southwest, Austria’s Alpine regions—once symbols of climatic stability—have surged to 32.7°C, and Milan is enduring 35.5°C, nearly 9°C above average. Spain now braces for a potentially dangerous 40°C weekend.

Beyond Europe, the pattern intensifies. Northern India has been locked in a prolonged heatwave exceeding 45°C, while Pakistan is experiencing temperatures up to 6°C above seasonal norms. In parts of the Middle East, forecasts warn of temperatures approaching 52°C.

These are not isolated events. Nor are they seasonal aberrations. They are interconnected manifestations of a destabilizing climate system.

For decades, scientists have warned of precisely this trajectory. Small Island Developing States (SIDS), in particular, have consistently sounded the alarm, emphasizing that climate change is not merely an environmental issue, but an existential one.

I do not write about this from a distance. During my time as President of Seychelles, I carried this message across continents—from Copenhagen to Abu Dhabi, from Samoa to Addis Ababa, and in engagements spanning the United Nations to Washington. Alongside many others, I urged the international community to recognize both the acute vulnerability of SIDS and the broader systemic dangers posed by global warming. Too often, these warnings were acknowledged, but not matched by action at the scale or urgency required.

What is changing now is not the science—but the scale and visibility of impact.

The climate crisis is no longer confined to distant geographies or vulnerable coastlines. It is disrupting major economies, straining infrastructure in developed nations, and reshaping the daily lives of populations once considered insulated. Heatwaves are affecting transport systems, reducing agricultural productivity, and increasing risks to public health, particularly among the most vulnerable.

From melting asphalt in London to strained power grids in Milan, from intensifying wildfires and prolonged droughts to sudden floods and violent storms, the signals are converging into a single, unmistakable message: climate change is no longer a future threat. It is a present and accelerating reality.

This moment demands a fundamental reframing.

Climate change is not only about sea-level rise. It is not only an “island issue.” It is a systemic global crisis affecting every nation, every economy, and every community. The notion that some regions may remain insulated has been decisively disproven.

And yet, despite the mounting evidence, global responses remain insufficient.

International commitments, while important, continue to fall short of the scale and urgency required. Current emissions trajectories are not aligned with the goals of the Paris Agreement. Adaptation financing remains limited and unevenly distributed. Mechanisms addressing loss and damage, though increasingly recognized, are still evolving relative to the magnitude of need.

This gap between ambition and implementation is no longer sustainable.

To today’s global leaders, look out your windows – the message is clear: the evidence is no longer abstract, nor confined to scientific reports. It is unfolding in real time—in ecosystems under strain, in extreme heat, in disrupted food systems, and in growing human insecurity.

The climate crisis recognizes no borders. No country is insulated. No society is immune.

This shared exposure must now translate into shared responsibility and accelerated action.

Mitigation efforts must intensify through rapid and sustained reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Adaptation must be elevated as a global priority, with investments in resilient infrastructure, early warning systems, and climate-smart development. Climate finance must be significantly scaled up and delivered equitably, reflecting both historical responsibility and present need. Above all, multilateral cooperation must be strengthened, as fragmented approaches will not meet a challenge of this magnitude.

We are no longer in an era of warning. We are in an era of consequence.

The decisions taken today will shape not only the trajectory of global warming, but also the resilience of our societies, the stability of our economies, and the future habitability of our planet.

Earth is our only home. The window for meaningful action is narrowing.

This must become the defining global call to action of our generation.

The time for hesitation is over.

James Alix Michel is the former President of Seychelles (2004–2016) and a global advocate for the blue economy, ocean conservation and climate resilience.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau