Credit: Oxfam America

By Abby Maxman
BOSTON, USA, May 11 2020 (IPS)

NGOs, at the international, national – and most of all local – level are on the frontlines every day.

I just heard from Oxfam staff in Bangladesh, that when asked whether they were scared to continue our response with the Rohingya communities in Cox’s Bazar, they replied: “They are now my relatives. I care about them — and this is the time they need us most.’”

These people – and those that they and others are supporting around the globe – are at the heart of this crisis and response.

As we talk about global figures and strategies, we must remember we are talking about parents who must decide whether they should stay home and practice social distancing or go to work to earn and buy food so their children won’t go hungry; women who constitute 70% of the workers in the health and social sector globally; people with disabilities and their carers; those who are already far from home or caught in conflict; people who don’t know what information to believe and follow, as rumours swirl.

Looking more broadly, we see that the COVID-19 crisis is exposing our broken and unprepared system, and it is also testing our values as a global community. COVID-19 is adding new and exacerbating existing threats of conflict, displacement, gender-based violence, climate change, hunger and inequality, and too many are being forced to respond without the proper resources – simple things like clean water, soap, health care and shelter. We must be creative and nimble to adapt our response in this new reality.

Most vulnerable communities

We know too well that when crisis hits, women, gender diverse persons, people with disabilities and their carers, the elderly, the poor, and the displaced suffer the worst impacts as existing gender, racial, economic and political inequalities are exposed.

Abby Maxman

Access

As we continue to ramp up our response, we must have access to the communities most in need. Likewise, COVID-19 cannot be used as an excuse to stop those greatest in need from accessing humanitarian aid.

Border closures are squeezing relief supply and procurement chains; Lockdowns and quarantines are blocking relief operations; And travel restrictions for aid workers have been put in place, disrupting their ability to work in emergency response programs.

Authorities should absolutely take precautions to keep communities safe, but we need to work at all levels to also ensure life-saving aid can still get through and people’s rights are upheld.

Local and national NGOs are on the frontline of the COVID-19 response, and communities’ access to the essential services and lifesaving assistance they provide must be protected. We also know that with effective community engagement, we can gain better and more effective access to communities.

Humanitarian NGOs and partners are adapting our approaches to continue vital humanitarian support while fulfilling our obligation to “do no harm.”

This adaptive approach, and our experience of ‘safe programming,’ shifting to remote management where possible; and scaling back some operations where necessary—will all be crucial as COVID-19 restrictions continue to amplify protection concerns and risk of sexual exploitation and abuse.

Funding

To mount an effective response, we must draw on our collective experience, but this crisis also offers an opportunity to change the way we work, including setting up new funding mechanisms to allow our system to leverage the complementary roles we all play in a humanitarian response.

Overall, NGOs urgently need funding that is flexible, adaptive, and aligned with Grand Bargain commitments. Our work is well underway, but more is needed to get resources to the frontlines.

We need to better resource country based pooled funds, which are crucial for national and local NGOs. Now more than ever, donors must support flexible mechanisms to increase funding flows to NGO partners.

Next Steps

In closing, the international community needs to come together to battle this pandemic in an inclusive and a responsive way that puts communities at the heart of solutions. Even while we respond in our own communities, we must see and act beyond borders if we are ever to fully control this pandemic.

The planning and response to COVID-19 need to be directly inclusive of local and national NGOs, women’s rights organizations, and refugee-led organizations leaders. We must address this new threat, while still responding to other pressing needs for a holistic response.
This means continuing our response to the looming hunger crisis, maintaining access to humanitarian aid, and supporting existing services including sexual and reproductive health and gender-based violence services.

We need to ensure humanitarian access is protected to reach the most vulnerable.

And funding needs to be quickly mobilized through multiple channels to reach NGOs and must be flexible both between needs and countries.

This much is clear: We cannot address this crisis for some and not others. We cannot do it alone. The virus can affect anyone but disproportionately affects the most marginalized. It is our collective responsibility to ensure that our global response includes everyone.

We owe it to those dedicated staff and their honorary “relatives” in Cox’s Bazar, and all those like them around the globe, to get this right.

This article was adapted from Abby Maxman’s comments as the NGO representative at the UN’s Launch of the Updated COVID-19 Global Humanitarian Response Plan on May 7, 2020.

Excerpt:

Greenpeace activists in front of the Prime Minister’s office in Warsaw, Poland. "We need to build a Green Welfare State". Credit: Maks Zieliński

By Savio Carvalho
LONDON, Apr 24 2020 (IPS)

In our current COVID 19 context of suffering and fear, that may sound like a strange and spooky quote. But let’s be clear: what we have achieved so far in the present is not – and shouldn’t be – indicative of what we can achieve in the future.

And, as Arundhati Roy reminds us, crisis moments can be portals to a different world.

There is enough scientific evidence to show that we have been living on borrowed time. We have not only inflicted unrestrained damages to the planet but also crossed planetary boundaries that shouldn’t be crossed.

Over the past century, as a civilisation, we have focused on un-sustained growth, power and profits, and in the bargain, we have meandered from our values, our humanity and our inner longing for peace and harmony.

We have heard it said multiple times, that we are living in an “unprecedented” situation. The same was said for the world wars and the 9/11 attack. What is unprecedented can either become the new normal or an opportunity to change and create something new.

And in the situation of COVID 19 which has infiltrated and impacted the entire planet, the world must now put aside their differences and come together to work towards the one unified goal of finding medicines and a vaccine – and giving access to them to all.

And we must do more than that. We must build a new world order. We are not at war with the virus. But we are in a situation as global and as groundbreaking as the two world wars. And there are lessons we can learn.

World War I led to fundamental changes in politics, economics and society. Aside from the gravely high human costs, the war resulted in new territories, where boundaries and political maps were redrawn, especially in Europe.

The war destroyed empires, created new nation-states and encouraged independence movements. The power of autocracy and the upper class was diminished, if not destroyed. It wasn’t all positive change, for sure. But fundamental change it was.

World War II also resulted in significant changes, and some called 1945 “the year zero”. The war led to the creation of the United Nations, thereby resulting in increased collaboration and peaceful cooperation amongst nations.

Another collaborative achievement that came out of WWII was the Bretton Woods Conference, a gathering of over 700 delegates from 44 allied nations who agreed to create institutions like the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development to enhance international economic cooperation.

Again, those institutions were not perfect (and in recent decades these institutions became avenues in which the developed world imposed cruel economic conditionalities on poorer countries). But they were new institutions born out of the zeitgeist and values of their time.

The COVID 19 crisis is not a world war, but just like the wars, it has led to a collective, global shock, a shock that is now urging humankind to live a life based on values and principles which work for people and the planet.

During this time when we have closely experienced the unimaginable, we have gained renewed respect and admiration for our front line essential workers, a greater appreciation for human kindness towards self and the community, as well as a deeper appreciation for nature – birds and fish are returning to areas they have abandoned; cities are seeing a drastic drop in air pollution and nitrogen levels; there is less dependence on fossil fuel; the destructive capitalistic economic model of extract and grow at any price is literally on its knees.

Yet, despite growing global social movements fueled by the people and citizens – such as Fridays for Future, the Fight Inequality Alliance or urban movements for change worldwide – our world leaders have sadly and continuously let us down.

But these are all the more reasons why this is the time to push the reset button – also for multilateralism and global institutions! This is the time to create something different, based on our human values of peace, dignity, and harmony with nature while respecting planetary boundaries.

Taking a leaf from the pages of history, now is the right time for the people and citizens to call for a world order that reflects these intrinsic human values. Now is the time to give birth to a new world order based on the principles of solidarity that COVID 19 have surfaced as key values for all of us all over the world.

As the United Nations marked 24th April as the International Day of Multilateralism and Diplomacy for Peace, this is the perfect moment to get the ball rolling, and work in close collaboration and coordination for a global call to action. Such global call will lay the foundations for the creation of the new world order.

Citizens must push their leaders to show real statesmanship by working together, and be bold and forge a new path, no matter how difficult it may be. This new governance for people and our planet must be based on human values and not profits.

We need global governance that puts equality, peace, dignity, democracy, and sustainable economics all at its very core. Public good should triumph over private profits.

This pathway would involve tackling climate change, developing a green and just economy via a just transition, ensuring food sovereignty, as well as investing to promote small localised agriculture, localised green energy production, and sustainable transport and cities.

Financial assistance, incentives, technical support and grants should be provided to emerging economies whilst at the same time incentivising developed economies to make the necessary shifts towards this new path for people and the planet. Corporations need to be fully accountable to people and planet, and trade needs to serve the public good.

The new world order can start with new institutions – like after the last two wars. Or it can be a re-founding of the United Nations. What is key is that we need global institutions with teeth. We need for health care, social protection and the environment global governance at least as powerful as the World Trade Organization is on trade.

We need global institution(s) that have the ability to hold governments and corporations to account if they fail to deliver on global agreements such as the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) or the Paris Agreement, able to provide financial support and incentives to not breach 1.5 degrees of warming threshold and ensure protection and restoration of biodiversity on land, forest and oceans.

A clean, sustainable and green economic system should be a centrifugal force of the new world order – not captured by corporate greed or entangled by complex bureaucratic procedures – and move at a lightening speed for the planet and its people.

Let the last day of this pandemic be the first day of the beginning of a new world many have been dreaming of. Because as illustrated in The Alchemist, when we really, really want something, the universe will conspire to help us achieve it.

The time to hit the reset button is NOW.

Excerpt:

Coronavirus pandemic threatens crises-ravaged communities, UN appeals for global support. Credit: United Nations

By The Rev. Liberato C. Bautista
NEW YORK, Apr 23 2020 (IPS)

Since the founding of the United Nations in 1945, space for multilateral policy development and commitment has grown. Its growth in the global health field augurs well as we find ways to mitigate the spread of the novel coronavirus.

Multilateralism is a difficult word, often misconstrued to be about the global and not the local and daily life. Perception plays a major role in how the public perceives multilateralism. This is in part due to the complexity of modern global challenges, which are well beyond the capacity of any one state or even a small group of states to resolve by themselves.

The novel coronavirus pandemic may yet change this perception.

As the saying goes, all politics is local. My rejoinder to this is that one’s local is another’s global. The local and the global are simultaneous realities. United Methodist connectionalism is akin to multilateralism.

As a church, we address social issues central to the multilateral agenda, including health, migration, peace, climate, and concerns about global poverty, trading and commerce, sustainable development, social justice, women, children and gender justice, human rights, indigenous peoples, and more.

Holistic health, healing and wholeness are intrinsic to Methodism and its Wesleyan roots. John Wesley attended to both the care for the soul and for the biological body with his abundant tips and remedies for ailments during his time.

Throughout the United Methodist connection, we are doing advocacy on public health policies at national legislatures and multilateral settings. We are in global mission together for sustainable development and humanitarian assistance, building capacity for peoples and communities to manage their healthcare needs.

Our numerous United Methodist-affiliated clinics, hospitals, colleges and universities around the world are training medical, health, social work and pastoral care professionals.

The Rev. Liberato Bautista. Credit: Marcelo Schneider, World Council of Churches

Human rights intrinsic to health, healing and wholeness

Global pandemics such as the novel coronavirus respect no sovereign boundaries or national allegiances. The coronavirus ravages all peoples across races and social classes, but its effects are more devastating on vulnerable populations everywhere and on struggling low- and middle-income economies around the world.

To mitigate the virulent spread of COVID-19, we are called by national authorities to stay at home, wash our hands, stay in place and practice physical distancing. These public health directives imply that we have houses to stay in, water to wash our hands, and some space where we can move around and still maintain six feet distance from each other.

When Philippine government officials issued the directive for Filipinos to stay at home, Norma Dollaga, a United Methodist deaconess and justice advocate from the Philippines, reacted through her Facebook page: “Stay at home. That’s for those who have homes. How about the homeless?”

The reality is that the human rights to health, housing and water, along with human mobility, have long been imperiled in many places around the world prior to COVID-19’s onslaught. Moreover, the health crisis has been used as an excuse in other parts of the world to grab power or tighten national security laws that are assaulting civil liberties and violating democratic rights.

Neither pandemic nor political or economic exigency can derogate from the enjoyment of fundamental human rights.

That the outbreak of COVID-19 started in Wuhan City in China has resulted in undue rise in racist and xenophobic acts especially against people of Chinese origin, or Asians in general. This is on top of an ongoing surge of populism and xenophobic nationalism around the world.

Health is wealth, fund it robustly

If health is wealth, it behooves peoples and their governments to protect it. Health care workers who are on the front line against this pandemic should have all the resources they need without begging for them.

A war may have been declared in the eradication of the novel coronavirus pandemic. But it is looking more like the deployment of war rhetoric and not the funding that real wars have received.

National budgets are moral documents. Health is the true common wealth that we must invest human and budgetary resources to. Yet we know that defense spending today far outweighs the puny investments from national coffers that health care urgently needs and strategically deserves.

Global collaboration is indispensable

The role of the U.N. in forging global cooperation is crucial, in times of crisis or calm. Global cooperation in the surveillance of emerging viruses and bacteria is necessary if pandemics are to be mitigated and diseases eradicated.

Coordinating this global collaboration and leading the development of a vaccine to treat the COVID-19 disease gives the public good reason to trust global institutions like World Health Organization. Think of the eradication of smallpox — and the ongoing programs to eventually eradicate polio and malaria — as examples of how global cooperation benefits us in our local daily lives.

To triumph over COVID-19, comprehensive cooperation is needed on many fronts — medical, pharmaceutical, healthcare workers, mental health providers, healthcare facilities. Public and private coordination is necessary in ensuring that the supply chain for much needed testing kits, ventilators, as well as personal protective equipment like N95 face masks, gloves, gowns, aprons, face shields and respirators remain unbroken.

A successful multilateral response requires a “whole-of-government,” “whole-of-society” and evidence-based public health approach. Mitigation works best when countries share expertise and scientific knowledge about threats to health, to climate, to populations and to peace and security.

Social inequalities imperil public health

The Commission on the Social Determinants of Health established by WHO in 2005 elaborated on the disastrous effects of social inequalities on people’s health. The intersections of physical, mental and social health, healing and wholeness are abundantly clear.

The commission’s 2008 final report stated: “The social determinants of health are the conditions in which people are born, grow, live, work and age. These circumstances are shaped by the distribution of money, power and resources at global, national and local levels.

The social determinants of health are mostly responsible for health inequities — the unfair and avoidable differences in health status seen within and between countries.”

The U.N. commemorates its 75th anniversary this year. It is an auspicious time to reaffirm support for its mandates, especially the securing of health for all peoples and the planet. A healthy population makes for a healthy planet.

Nongovernmental organizations, including faith-based organizations like our United Methodist representations at the U.N., are in a kairos moment to help achieve the U.N.’s mandates.

COVID-19 may have been virulent and will forever change the rules of social etiquette and socialization. But the novel coronavirus has done what multilateral negotiations have not done — pause globalization and its unbridled pursuit of profit and capital.

When the world reopens from the ravages of the virus, we have a momentous task not to return to, but to transform, global and local arrangements to protect humanity and the planet, at least from the ravages of pandemics and social inequalities.

It comforts me that not all contagions are deadly. Some are beneficial. Love and kindness are. So are hospitality, mercy and justice.

*This article 0riginally appeared in UM News”. The link follows: https://www.umnews.org/en/news/collaboration-can-help-eradicate-covid-19

Excerpt:

Credit: United Nations

By James A. Paul
NEW YORK, Apr 15 2020 (IPS)

The coronavirus pandemic has set off an unprecedented institutional crisis at the United Nations – funds are drying up, key meetings are cancelled and the world body is fighting for its future.

The chief management officer of the world body, Catherine Pollard, wrote a dire memo on 1 April, setting out the breadth of the crisis, the depth of the financial shortfall, and the emergency steps to be taken immediately to head off ruin.

This UN emergency comes as no surprise, since the pandemic has brought so many governments and institutions to the brink of collapse.

As of the end of March, the UN faced arrears in its dues for regular operations and peacekeeping of $5.43 billion. Worse still, future payments during the course of the year may not arrive as planned, erasing the UN’s scant reserves.

So, the organization faces what Pollard described in her memo as a “liquidity crisis” – that is, the UN may simply run out of money at some point and be unable to pay for its operations and staff. Will the doors be shut and the UN cease to exist?

Depending as it does on government dues and grants, and by statute unable to borrow money, the UN is in an especially difficult position. Can its squeeze through the crisis and return to normalcy?

This is the question that is preoccupying Secretary General Antonio Guterres and his team. But their prognostications are clouded by the fact that UN budgets have already been cut repeatedly in recent years and a hostile president sits in the White House.

Further, UN activities focus so heavily on meetings, negotiations and other settings in which virus transmission is especially likely. The critically important climate conference, scheduled for November 2020, has already been cancelled. Other cancellations have been announced and more are sure to come.

What cards does Guterres have to play? He must, of course, emphasize the need for common global action, both now and in the future. Narrow nationalism, however in vogue in certain countries, clearly cannot protect the world from corona, climate melt-down, species extinction and other existential crises.

The UN and its system of specialized agencies can and must be at the forefront of any reasonable program for a viable planetary future.Another card in Guterres’ hand is the extraordinarily small cost of the UN in comparative terms.

The UN’s regular and peacekeeping budgets are together less than $10 billion. The regular budget of $3 billion, covering all the UN’s global activities except peacekeeping, is about a thirtieth of the budget of the city of New York!

Any needed assistance for the UN would be very small indeed in comparison to the massive bailouts, some well over a trillion dollars, being announced by major governments, the European Union, and the IMF.

A rescue package for the UN is easy to imagine in that context, but would there be the necessary political support? That would depend on leadership from supportive governments, media and, of course, civil society groups, at a time when many other concerns beckon.

It will not be easy, but neither was the rescue of the UN from its financial crisis in the 1990s.

The hardest part of a bid for special consideration will be to envision the UN in an inventive way in the new world that will emerge post-corona. What can the UN bring to that future world that will be unique and indispensable?
How might it offer a way forward that would win the backing of a broad coalition of thinkers and organizers and ordinary people? Bold moves will be called for, not mere survivalist strategies.

Obviously, much depends on how long the shutdowns last and how different the post-corona world proves to be. If the virus is in substantial retreat by the summer and economies open up “normally” again, the flow of funds to the UN might resume relatively swiftly.

Then a shaky status quo for the UN would be most likely. But if governments open their economies prematurely and those moves are followed by renewed outbreaks and then a broad political crisis, all bets will be off.

That would be the time of greatest danger for the UN but also its greatest opportunity. We can hope that the virus would eventually succumb to human ingenuity and that in its wake a new era of solidarity and internationalism, nurtured by a stronger UN, would eventually prevail.

Excerpt:

By Peter Paul van de Wijs
AMSTERDAM, Netherlands, Apr 13 2020 (IPS)

In recent days we have seen the understandable decision reached to postpone the UN climate change conference – COP26 – which was due to take place this November. As the world reels from the widespread impacts of the coronavirus crisis, it is the right call.

COVID-19 is a pressing global issue that is starting to strain health systems, cut down economic output and undermine efforts to address poverty and inequality. These are challenges that, in the coming months, will need concerted and collaborative effort between and within nations to overcome.

But what does this mean for one of the most enduring and universal challenges we face – that of climate change? The delay of COP26 until 2021 does not mean that efforts by countries to meet their climate change commitments have to be on hold. Far from it.

Fulfilling Paris Agreement promises

As with coronavirus, climate change is a significant cause of reduced outcomes for health and wealth around the world. We know that the consequences of climate change continue to escalate, disproportionately impacting communities that have contributed the least to the problem of carbon emissions, with devasting effects on the environment and global biodiversity.

So, while the COP26 global gathering of opinion formers and climate change experts won’t take place this autumn in Scotland, there can be no delay or dialling back of ambition when it comes to climate action. Indeed, if countries are to fulfill the promises made in the Paris Agreement we need levels of ambition to grow.

A green transition in the COVID-19 recovery?

Even as countries strive to contain and mitigate the COVID-19 crisis, we cannot lose sight of this. That’s why climate action needs to be kept in the mainstream of political discussions – and even consider how the recovery phase of the pandemic, when it comes, can be implemented in a way that supports a green transition.

Peter Paul van de Wijs

The European Commission has been forthright already, with Executive Vice-President Frans Timmermans stating on 1 April that, when it comes to addressing climate change, “we will not slow down our work domestically or internationally”. That position is welcome – and one we need the world’s other major economies to echo.

Business input to the solution

Efforts by governments to tackle climate change need to include greater engagement of the private sector. Businesses have a huge role in helping reduce carbon emissions and contributing towards solutions. That’s why sustainable business practices need to be front and center of corporate efforts to realign the way they operate, both now and in the aftermath of the pandemic.

Indeed, contributing to climate change mitigation makes sense to companies from both environmental and economic standpoints. So-called sustainable investing has been on the rise for some time – and the current crisis is demonstrating why ESG (environmental, social and governance) factors are increasingly important to major investors.

Business resilience, continuity planning, community engagement and employee rights – these are all ESG risks to be managed. Responsible companies, that are transparent about their practices and take obligations to people and the planet seriously, stand to benefit.

Understanding impacts can drive improvement

GRI is the independent and multi-stakeholder organization that provides the most widely used sustainability reporting framework, the GRI Standards. And during this testing period, we are continuing to help companies to disclose their impacts and support governments to collaborate with the private sector in fulfilling national climate change commitments.

This includes engaging business in the Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), which articulate the efforts by individual countries to cut emissions and adapt to climate change.

The NDCs are central to the implementation of the Paris Agreement, with all new or updated NDCs requiring to be submitted this year. While acknowledging the huge challenges many governments face as a result of coronavirus, we cannot let this timetable slip.

In a very short space of time, the impact of COVID-19 has sent shockwaves around the world. When it comes to climate change, the risks are longer-term, more diffused and harder to quantify.

Yet they remain real and more volatile than ever. Future generations will look back on 2020 as a year when the global community either stepped up or fell short. Let’s ensure this year of crisis brings out the best in us and we do not let them down.

Excerpt:

Credit: CPJ

By Avi Asher-Schapiro
NEW YORK, Apr 8 2020 (IPS)

Governments all over the world have been considering cellphone surveillance to help track and contain the spread of the coronavirus.

In Italy, Germany and Austria, Reuters reports, telecoms companies say they are turning over data containing location information to public health officials, though aggregated and anonymized to prevent individuals from being identified.

Other media reports say governments in South Korea and South Africa are monitoring individual cellphone locations, and Israel this month authorized security agents tracing the coronavirus infection to access location and other data from millions of cellphone users that The New York Times reports they had been collecting, previously undisclosed, since 2002.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said the program would “maintain the balance between the rights of the individual and needs of general society.”

Separately, authorities in Iran, Poland, and India are among those developing apps to monitor whether people are observing quarantine or interacting with suspected COVID-19 patients, according to international news reports.

Although public health experts say strict limitations on movement are required to contain the coronavirus, journalists are acutely aware of the risks posed to their work when governments and technology companies monitor citizens’ cellphone activities.

In recent years, CPJ has tracked the journalist targets of Pegasus, a technology the Israeli surveillance firm NSO Group markets to help government agencies hack into individual phones. (The firm has told CPJ that it investigates allegations of abuse.)

CPJ has separately documented how intelligence officials can abuse access to cellphone networks to track and lure reporters and their sources.

CPJ spoke to Bill Marczak, a postdoctoral researcher at University of California, Berkeley, and a leading expert on cellphone surveillance technology, about the implications of coronavirus tracking measures for journalists and other targets of government surveillance.

Marczak, who is also a fellow at the University of Toronto’s Citizen Lab and helped identify and analyze the first known use of Pegasus spyware against a civil society target, told CPJ that surveillance powers and technologies that emerge during this crisis could be very tough to roll back—and could be turned against journalists in vulnerable settings.

His answers have been edited for concision and clarity.

Q: We’re at a moment now when a lot of governments are saying they need to ramp up cellphone surveillance to stop the spread of the coronavirus. Are you concerned about how systems may be built out?

A: Anytime when there’s a sense of urgency around proposals to collect more data about people, those are the times when we need to pay attention, because bad things can happen. Systems can be very quickly spun up without careful review, because there’s a sense they need to get done now. Privacy and security can become an afterthought.

What we know about location data from cellphones is that even if it’s assigned an anonymous identifier, it can be reverse engineered to see where people are—at home; at work; on their commute; walking up and down their block; and of course, journalists meeting with a source.

Q: We’ve seen lots of proposals for enhanced surveillance of cellphones during this crisis—how are you thinking about the range of what’s out there?

A: On one side of the spectrum, we see places like Israel, where the authorities come out and say, “Hey, so we’ve actually been collecting location metadata since 2002. We never told you about it. And now we are going to use it for public health.”

Then there’s these proposals for apps for people to download on their phones. Some do location tracking. Some claim they don’t.

In Singapore, for example, they’ve rolled out an app that claims to do proximity tracking. They use Bluetooth to ping nearby phones that have the app installed, to see which phones are near which people. And if someone is diagnosed, then the Ministry of Health can get that proximity data to map who might be exposed. These proposals sometimes don’t require the government to have a central database of everyone’s location history.

Proximity data could be problematic too, depending on where it’s stored. Even if it’s stored on the phone itself, [that phone] could be seized by authorities. You can imagine a situation where some governments can say, “This person is a journalist or activist, let’s see who they were meeting with, let’s grab their phone.”

So we do run into all of these troubling privacy possibilities with proximity tracking—though I would say there’s less potential for large scale abuse if the data is stored on a device itself.

Q: There’s some confusion about how governments get access to these cell phone records. How does it work?

A: From a technical perspective, all it would require is for the government to go to cellphone companies and say, “Hey, we need to access this data, can you please share it?” They could set up some sort of arrangement where the phone companies ship that data over to a government database. Or you could see a situation where it stays with the phone company and the government requests data over time.

But the bottom line is phone companies can—and do—receive and log this sort of information.

In the U.S., we’ve seen cases where bounty hunters have accessed people’s location through brokers who are reselling this data. I suggest an appropriate mental model of this is to assume phone companies are collecting and storing this data, and can be reselling and sharing it.

Q: We see some private companies coming in and making the case they can build a system to gather that location data, and perhaps make it useful for fighting the virus.

A: There was reporting that the NSO Group was possibly spinning up a “new system.” It wasn’t clear from the limited information disclosed how that monitoring would actually work. But you can imagine a situation where someone is diagnosed, you get their number, and the NSO Group starts doing location tracking on that number. This could be combined with CCTV or facial recognition technology to issue notifications when others come in contact with the infected person. But we don’t know. NSO has released no information about this.

[Editor’s note: CPJ emailed an NSO Group spokesperson in late March asking for more information about its coronavirus system but did not receive a reply before publication.]

Q: The private surveillance industry isn’t exactly known for its respect for human rights in general, and press freedom in particular. Last year, the U.N. special rapporteur for freedom of expression even called for a global moratorium on the sale of these technologies. Are you worried about these players stepping in now?

A: Given the urgency with which a lot of governments are understandably approaching coronavirus, you are going to see authorities reaching for off-the-shelf solutions—they will look to buy solutions from existing surveillance firms. It’s problematic that a lot of the companies in this space have track records of working with intelligence agencies and aren’t exactly above board. They’ve potentially helped spy on journalists and activists in the past. And that’s concerning to me.

There’s another thing I am concerned about. Once a government shells out a bunch of money for a new surveillance system for location tracking, justified by the coronavirus, what happens when the virus is over? How does it get used, how does it get repurposed? Once you implement a system to track a bunch of people—it’s not likely it’s going away in the future.

Q: In this moment where governments are reaching for more authority and technical capacity to monitor cell phones, how should journalists be thinking about these things? Should they be resisting?

A: I wouldn’t encourage people to subvert efforts to track them if they are infected. But when the crisis is over and life returns to normal, people should be aware that this tracking and tracing could be used beyond the length of the crisis. If you are forced to install something on your phone—and you can’t really say no—you are going to have to imagine you’ve entered a country where you have a police minder. Perhaps don’t contact a super secret source.

Q: What role can journalists play here?

A: We need journalists to dig into these new schemes. If the government says we are doing location tracking, or we are doing contact tracing, we need reporters digging into what exactly they are doing. What company did you buy that tool from? Who has access to the data?

Q: Are we at an inflection point here for cellphone surveillance?

A: It’s early, but this is how I am thinking about it. For governments looking for tools to hone their authoritarianism—regimes who want to get more control, or get more visibility into their citizens’ lives—the coronavirus is an issue like “fake news” or cybersecurity or terrorism that can been used to justify enhanced powers. For a sufficiently authoritarian government, the barrier to knowing where everyone is all the time is basically just cost.

In democratic contexts, it’s cost, plus getting over whatever oversight or checks are built into the system. We are going to hear more and more that we have to implement these tracking methods so we can go on about our lives.

*Avi Asher-Schapiro is also a former staffer at VICE News, International Business Times, and Tribune Media, and an independent investigative reporter who has published in outlets including The Atlantic, The Intercept, and The New York Times.

Excerpt:

By Linda Eckerbom Cole
KAMPALA, Uganda, Apr 7 2020 (IPS)

We are living in uncertain times. All of us are experiencing the Corona pandemic in various ways. For most it means quarantine and physical isolation. We worry about family members, loss of income and not knowing what the future will look like- or how long this will continue.

While the spread of Covid-19 across Sub-Saharan Africa is a few weeks behindwhat is happening in the US and Europe, the situation in Uganda and other east African countries has begun to shift dramatically in recent days.

A month back there were only a few cases, now the numbers are starting to increase. As a response the Ugandan government has ordered a complete shutdown of the country. International borders are closed, markets and trading no longer allowed, schools have shut, social gatherings banned, transportation has been severely restricted and only essential businesses and personnel are able to continue.

This has significant implications for AWR and all of the women in our programs. At the moment we are temporarily closing down the majority of our operations, except for some targeted agricultural activities to help ensure food security.

We are also redeploying a dedicated group of staff into Covid-19 response.

Many of the women in our programs live in remote and isolated areas. For them the biggest issue will not be fear of the virus but rather access to food. We are especially concerned about older women who are dependent on the income from trade to be able to buy food.

Children sharing a meal in Palabek Refugee Settlement camp in Northern Uganda. Close to 50,000 people from South Sudan live in close quarters in this camp. There are 11 camps in Northern Uganda, a country that hosts 1.4 million refugees. Credit: Brian Hodges for African Women Rising

Many of these women care for orphans and other dependents and the risk of hunger and malnutrition for those households is significant.

We are working together closely with local leaders as well as our staff that live in those communities to identify households that are at higher risk of vulnerability.

Our biggest worry is for all the refugees who live in the country. Northern Uganda currently hosts 1.4 million refugees. The cramped living conditions in the camps means that isolation and social distancing are next to impossible.

As of January 31, 2020, the United Nations has received only 9% of total funding needed to care for the refugees, the majority of whom have fled violence in their home countries. That means all services are under-funded.

There is a lack of food, health care, water and sanitation. A Covid-19 outbreakin these settings would be a disaster. Most of the South Sudanese refugees we work together with cannot afford soap. How to even begin talking about prevention when people are unable to wash their hands properly?

We are working together as part of a taskforce with the UN, the Ugandan government and other aid organizations to provide support, both to local communities and within the refugee camps.

Classroom in Palabek Refugee Settlement camp in Northern Uganda. Close to 50,000 people from South Sudan live in close quarters in this camp. There are 11 camps in Northern Uganda, a country that hosts 1.4 million refugees. Credit: Brian Hodges for African Women Rising

Given our long-term presence in and connection to these areas, AWR is in aunique situation for rapid response. Our work in the past has earned the trust of local government and community leaders, and we have a network of mobilizers and local contacts that can help identify and reach the most vulnerable.

So how are we responding and how can you help?

• Security and continued wellbeing of AWR staff– we are committed to paying all staff salaries for the next several months, even if we have to suspend operations. For those who continue to work we will ensure access to personal protective equipment (PPE) and knowledge on how to stay healthy
• Nutritional food support for vulnerable groups– contingent on resources, AWR will mobilize supplemental support for those most in need
• Covid-19 prevention in refugee camps– in collaboration with the taskforce, our team will provide information on how to keep refugee families healthy, identification of symptoms, what to do if someone becomes ill, and how to prevent spreading of the disease. Each household will receive soap.

If we have learned one thing from this, it is the realization that we are all connected and dependent on each other. Now is the time to step up – to show kindness and compassion beyond our own comfort zones.
This is a critical emergency situation and we have the opportunity to help change the outcome. We are counting on you to make that possible. Your donation today is pivotal.

Excerpt:

Anand Vihar Bus Terminal, New Delhi, March 28, 2020. Credit: IMPRI

By Dr. Balwant Singh Mehta, Dr. Simi Mehta and Dr. Arjun Kumar
NEW DELHI, Mar 30 2020 (IPS)

The worldwide spread of novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is severely affecting the global economy and as per the recent updates almost one-third to half of the global population are now under some form of a lockdown.

This has threatened an economic bloodbath, where practically all economic activities around the world are witnessing a closure. According to the International Labour Organization, nearly 25 million jobs could be lost worldwide due to the pandemic and would mean income losses for workers between USD 860 billion and USD 3.4 trillion by the end of 2020.

This will translate into fall in consumption of goods and services, impacting the businesses and in turn viciously affecting the national economies. Among other continents, Asia would witness disruptions in backward and forward linkages in supply chains.

Significant providers of employment like manufacturing, tourism and hospitality, travel, services and the retail industries along with small and medium enterprises, have already begun to bear the acute brunt of COVID-19.

Choosing between Human Health and Economic Health

Though India’s number of reported coronavirus infections remains relatively low (around 800, as of March 27, 2020) vis-à-vis other countries, it is feared that the pace of spread of the virus in India similar to that of China, Europe or the United States would have sweeping disastrous consequences than anywhere else.

The reason for this is not just the sheer magnitude of its population of over 1.3 billion, but also its inept and crippling health systems and basic infrastructure, inadequate and untrained human resources leading to poor delivery of services. COVID-19 has just transcended into its third stage in the country.
As India was preparing itself through preventive actions to stop the further spread of the virus, the Prime Minister announced nationwide lockdown – comprising every state, every Union Territory, every district, every village, and every lane- for 21 days starting 00:00 hours of 25th March, and enforced the Disaster Management Act 2005.

The irony of the situation is that while there is an acknowledgement on the need for social distancing and self-isolation and the preeminence of human lives and well-being, there are growing concerns over adding to the severity of economic and social impact that the lockdown would have on the country.

This would be especially embossed considering the already prevailing economic slowdown. Economists like Kaushik Basu and Arun Kumar have echoed apprehensions that failure to provide essential goods and services to the bottom 50 percent of the population could bring India to the brink of mass sufferings and social revolts.

Cities as engines of growth have come to a grinding halt. The reason for this is that the ‘citymakers’ like the daily-wage migrant (seasonal and circular) labourers (estimated at over 50 million), street vendors, auto or rickshaw drivers, construction and utility workers are finding it onerous to survive amid no work and lack of social protection and rights, or proper inclusive policies is expensive and inconceivable.

Similar is the plight of small businesses as well as freelancers and those operating in the gig economy, who have begun to bear the brunt of national lockdown. On the other hand, big businesses and regular salaried citizens, though bearing the cost of social distancing, can navigate the rough waters and survive.

Livelihood in a Lockdown too!

Before delving into the lurching livelihood situation in India, it is important to highlight some major trends in the prevailing national-level employment. In 2018, India’s population was estimated at 134 crores consisting of 26 per cent of children (0-14 years) and 74 per cent adults (15+ years). The adult population (96 crore) includes 64 per cent working age people (15-59 years) and 10 per cent senior citizens (60+ years).

As per recent Periodic Labour Force Survey (PLFS) report 2017-18, around 45 crore (47 per cent) adults were working in the country. Over half (52 per cent) of the workers were self-employed followed by casual workers (25 per cent) and the remaining were regular or salaried (23 per cent). Of these, the casual workers are the most vulnerable due to the irregular nature of their work and daily-wage payment based on their work schedule.

The status of other workers also does not provide a great sight, as most of the self-employed (96 per cent) were either own-account workers or unpaid family worker (sole workers), with only 4 per cent constituting employers or entrepreneurs.

On the other hand, over 70 per cent of the regular or salaried workers had no written contract, and 72 per cent of them were engaged in the private sector, nearly half (46 per cent) were not eligible for paid leaves and 45 per cent were not entitled to any social security benefits including health care. This means only 42 per cent regular or salaried workers (9.6 out of 23 per cent) have job security or working in organized sector, while rest 58 per cent of are without any job security.

Informal employment: paid work without any social protection; and total is percentage share of the sector in total employment
Source: PLFS, 2017-18

Number of workers (in millions) of Casual/Informal/Self-employed (separating regular employment) by different sectors for 2017-18 (UPSS and All age)

Source: Ibid

Sector wise understanding of employment in the non-agriculture sector includes: 72 per cent of the casual workers engaged in construction, 14 per cent in manufacturing and 12 per cent in other services; about 12 per cent of the self-employed engaged in trade, hotel and restaurants, 10 per cent in manufacturing, 5 per cent in transport, storage and communications sectors and 4 per cent in other services.

Among the regular or salaried workers, 22 per cent worked in manufacturing, 14 per cent in trade, hotel and restaurants, 13 per cent in transport, storage and communications, and 8 per cent in finance, business and real estate etc.

Thus, in the context of the prevailing pandemic and lockdown, the jobs and earnings of an estimated 20 crore workers, including casual workers, regular or salaried workers without any job security and sole self-employed (own account or unpaid family), are at stake. This figure will only increase if another 3 crore people who engaged in begging, prostitution and others are included.

Interventions at the Government Level

The absence of market activity will directly and adversely impact these vulnerable people and their families. The Union and state governments have made appeals to the private sector to not layoff or cut the salaries for the workers during this time of crisis.

Financial relief packages have also been announced by the states. For instance, Uttar Pradesh has announced a financial package of over INR 353 crore to give cash handouts to an estimated 3.53 million daily wage earners and labourers.

Moreover, amount of INR 1,000 each will be given to 1.5 million daily wage labourers and 2.03 million construction workers across the state through direct benefit transfer. That means, the beneficiaries including rickshaw pullers, hawkers and kiosk owners, will get the money directly into their bank accounts.

The Punjab government has declared an immediate relief of INR 3,000 to each registered construction worker in the state. A total sum of INR 96 crore has been earmarked for this purpose. The Delhi government also announced payment of up to INR 5,000 as pension to the 8.5 lakh poor beneficiaries and free ration to those entitled to food subsides under public distribution system (PDS).

While promulgating the orders for a ‘janata curfew’ to be observed on March 22, 2020, the Prime Minister (PM) in his address to the nation on March 19, 2020 announced that a COVID-19 Economic Response Task Force, chaired by Finance Minister (FM) had been set up to combat the impact of coronavirus on the Indian economy.

Interestingly, the FM was caught unawares of such a task force during her press conference to announce several taxation reliefs measures on March 24, 2020. Most of these related to the deferring of payments of direct taxes, GST for three months, and interest rate subvention/other relaxation on such payments.

In other words, the filing requirements of these taxes has been postponed to July 2020. On the same day, the PM announced a ‘total lockdown’ of the country starting at 00:00 hours of March 25, 2020.

After around 36 hours of the lockdown into effect, on March 26, 2020 the FM announced a slew of welfare measures under yet another scheme- Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Yojana (PMGKY), amounting to INR 1.7 lakh crore (US$ 22 billion), and also provided the number of poor people of the country that these would cover- 80 crore or 2/3 of India’s population.

At least this announcement reveals the number of ‘poor’ in the country, which the government acknowledges require support. A reality check is self-evident when one relates it with the recent rigidity of the government in concealing the NSSO data on consumption expenditure (used to compute poverty estimates).

Intended to reach out to the poorest of the poor, with food, gas and money in hands, so that they do not face difficulties in buying essential supplies and are able to meet their essential needs, the major highlights of the Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Yojana package are:

1. Special insurance scheme amounting to INR 50 lakh for health workers fighting COVID-19 in government hospitals, wellness and health care centers. Under this scheme approximately 22 lakh health workers would be provided insurance cover to fight this pandemic.

2. PM Garib Kalyan Ann Yojana: an additional five kg of rice/wheat will be given to 80 crore poor people, above the existing 5 kg they receive, along with 1-kg pulses according to regional preferences per household free of any charge, for a period of three months.

3. Under the PM Kisan Samman Nidhi scheme, instalment of INR 2,000 in the first week of April will be transferred to the bank accounts of 8.7 crore farmers.

4. PMKJY components:

a) 20 crore Jan Dhan women account holders will be covered under the relief package and an ex-gratia cash transfer of INR 500 per month for the next three months.
b) 8 crore poor families will get free cylinders for three months under the Ujjawala scheme.
c) To prevent any disruptions in the employment of those who earn less than INR 15,000 per month, the government will bear the cost of Provident Fund (PF) contribution of both employer and employee (24 per cent) for the next three months. However, this is only for those businesses which have up to 100 employees.
d) 3 crore senior citizens, persons with disabilities and widows will get one-time additional amount of INR 1,000 in two instalments, will be given through DBT over a period of three months.

5. With effect from April 1, 2020, the wages under MGNREGA has been increased by INR 20 per day or INR 2000 annually per worker on an average. as additional income to help daily wage labourers.

6. Collateral-free loans for the 63 lakh women organized through the Self-Help Groups have been doubled from INR 10 lakh to INR 20 lakh under the Aajeevika Deen Dayal Antyodaya Yojana or National Rural Livelihood Mission.

7. Other components of PMGKY:

a) Employees’ Provident Fund Regulations will be amended to include pandemic as the reason to allow non-refundable advance of 75 per cent of the amount or three months of the wages, whichever is lower, from their accounts. Families of 4 crore workers registered under EPF can take benefit of this window.
b) State Governments have been directed to utilize the welfare fund for 3.5 crore building and other constructions workers created under the Building and other Construction Workers’ Act, 1996 to protect them against economic disruptions.
c) The state governments will be asked to utilize the funds available under District Mineral Fund (DMF) for supplementing and augmenting facilities of medical testing, screening and other requirements to preventing the spread of COVID-19 and for the treatment of the patients affected with this pandemic.

The above interventions can be represented in the table below:

To provide an insight into the actual (as per the government statistics) numbers of beneficiary claimants across the above categories of PMGKY and also some information on those that have been left out from its purview are represented in the table below:

Vital current statistics from official sources (most recent available):

The measures by the FM can be summarized as too late and too little, where the existing schemes have been consolidated and portrayed as providing a major aid for the benefit of the poor. It is difficult to understand the calculation behind arriving at the figure INR 500 (~US$ 7) in the Jan Dhan accounts to women and INR 333 (<US$ 5) to pensioners and to what avail would this meagre sum be?

For instance, even if a family spends INR 20 per day to buy half a litre of milk, it comes to spending INR 600 a month, leave aside procuring vegetables. Nutrition security certainly remains out of the consideration of the government in this support package.

One must not be surprised when India’s ranks in the Global Hunger Index slips further down in the world rankings. Given the existing inflation and high costs of essential commodities, this scanty amount appears to be making a mockery of the poor by showcasing sheer tokenism.

As against the steps taken by other major nations in their fight against COVID-19, India’s relief package of around US $ 22 billion seems miniscule and excludes other sections like small and medium enterprises, migrant labourers, unorganized sector, pregnant and lactating women and children, those suffering with critical ailments, etc.

This is in continuation of habitual inclusion and exclusion errors in the official database, which was also highlighted in the Economic Survey of 2016-17 that noted an estimated exclusion error from 2011-12 suggested that 2/5th of the bottom 40 percent of the population are excluded from the PDS. The corresponding figure for 2011-12 for MGNREGS was 65 percent.

The table below shows how miserly approach of India in providing much needed relief to each section of the economy. In fact, the PMGKY is eerily silent on utilizing the flagship programs on of the Modi government like the National Health Mission, PM-JAY: Ayushman Bharat (need of universal coverage) & Health and Wellness Centers, various component of National Urban Livelihood Mission, Swachh Bharat Mission, etc., to combat the fallouts.

On March 27, 2020 Reserve Bank of India (RBI) also announced measure to reduce the repo rate by 75 basis points and CRR by 100 basis points (3 per cent from earlier 4 per cent), and asked the banks to decide on moratorium on EMIs for next three months.

Source: https://qz.com/1819776/here-are-the-coronavirus-bailouts-being-prepared-around-the-world/ , Accessed on March 27, 2020

Analysis and Way Forward

The unprecedented consistency of a three-month planning and coordination from different stakeholders of the government, inclusion of COVID-19 tests under Ayushman Bharat and capping of the test price at INR 4500 by private hospitals, and commitment to procure 40,000 ventilators by June 2020 are welcome moves and provides a much-needed respite.

But a detailed strategy for the execution and delivery of services remains veiled. While focusing on symbolisms, major attributes like actual figures of payment for each beneficiary; daily or weekly timeline and roadmap for the infusion of these support measures, their monitoring and implementation, strengthen the monetary policy stance for utilizing the INR 15000 crore for the procurement of kits and equipment for healthcare and infusing it with more funds appears to be eschewed. There is an urgent need to include healthcare under the ‘Emergency Sector Lending’ and execute it on a war footing.

While the total aggregated amount announced for the benefit of its vulnerable sections appears to be huge, yet per person benefit come out to be inadequate. Further, it is evident that the lockdown was put into place without having a well-crafted strategy including the assured supply of essential commodities, services especially for medical care, kits, equipment, manpower and infrastructure preparedness as well as what happens to the poor and those who lose their livelihoods during this social distancing diktat and COVID-19 fears.

In the absence of clear-cut guidelines and proper implementation plans, the implementation of all these announcements appears to be allusive. This specifically demonstrates the vile attempt of the insensitive bureaucracy continuing with their colonial ‘collector’ legacy lacking any compassion for the masses.

In fact, the much-boasted strong macro-economic situation of the country over the past few months is exposed considering the risk averse and pessimistic approach towards public spending over the last few days.

There is no proper national level registry for poor and people involved in informal jobs or sector such as vegetable vendors, construction workers, rickshaw pullers, auto-rickshaw drivers and temporary staff etc.

There is urgent need for these registries to be instituted and updated using latest digital technologies and innovations, along with a dynamic unemployment registry to provide direct economic (universal basic income), health (universal coverage) and other necessary contingency protection and security support.

The government must fast-track the payment of delayed payments to each public and private enterprise in this time of crisis. Further, the utility bills of the most vulnerable must also be paid for by the governments. Also, to ensure that each ward (84420 in 4378 cities) and each Gram Panchayat (262734 in 6975 Blocks and 706 Districts) are fully equipped to serve the populace, each of them must be provided with emergency funds from the existing schemes like the Swach Bharat Mission, Jal Jeevan Mission, etc.

This will facilitate decentralization, enable maintaining hygiene, sanitization, providing necessary services, etc. The government must join forces with its resilient private sector, non-profits, citizens and faith institutions willing to steer through these turbulent times.

In totality, in the existing relief and monetary aid the masses have been left out from the government’s care, which is its primary duty. This shortcoming must be plugged as soon as possible and comprehensive pan-sectoral reforms for 21st Century must be undertaken to create the New India that we are dreaming of.

Excerpt:

Credit: United Nations

By Abdul Mohammed
SANA’A, Yemen, Mar 26 2020 (IPS)

In every room in Yemen’s Al-Saba’een hospital, patients in critical condition waited on chairs, and still others laid on the bare ground. I saw women and girls sharing beds in pairs, and children laying close together being treated.

This is Sana’a, Yemen’s best-supplied and capital city, on what has become an ordinary day. Coronavirus hasn’t arrived in Yemen yet.

As I watch the destruction that the novel coronavirus is wreaking on wealthy and peaceful countries with developed health systems, I fear for Yemen. If cholera, diphtheria, and malnutrition can overwhelm our war-stricken health system, I can only imagine the devastation that this fast-spreading, uncurable virus could unleash.

The impact of COVID-19 would mirror the impact of the war to date: no one would be safe, but the most vulnerable would bear a disproportionate share of the burden.

Credit: UNOCHA

The world is now getting a glimpse of the reality we have faced in Yemen for the past five years since war here escalated: life-threatening illness, deepening economic pressure, fewer and worse options for parents and caregivers, and a dizzyingly constant change in routine.

Millions now live in overcrowded shelters, without safe water, proper nutrition or proper health care. The basic steps others are taking to curtail the spread of COVID-19 are virtually impossible here. Should it take hold, the results would be unthinkable.

Public health crises don’t just threaten the well-being of the afflicted; their impacts ripple widely across families and societies. I think about Ahmed, a young man from Ibb, who lost his father to cholera, and then was suddenly thrust into the role of sole provider and caregiver for his entire family.

“I am not ready for this,” he shared in desperation. Feeling ill-equipped but required to take on extraordinary responsibilities – and with little time for grief or sentiment – is one that most Yemenis can identify with.

As we mark five years since a US-backed, Saudi-led coalition intervened and escalated the war in our country, we find ourselves defenseless against even basic maladies like diphtheria and cholera. These stone-age pathogens are held at bay in most societies by taking basic public health measures, drinking safe water, and eating nutritious food.

But parties to this on-going fighting since 2015 – have damaged or destroyed more than half of Yemen’s hospitals and other health facilities through bombing and shelling. The fighting has destroyed water and sanitation infrastructure in an already water-poor country, leaving more than two-thirds of the country with only unsafe water to drink.

As a result, Yemen now has the unenviable distinction of having experienced the world’s worst diphtheria outbreak in 30 years and the largest cholera outbreak ever recorded.

Even when it comes to critical patients who can be saved, this protracting war shown no mercy. Tens of thousands of Yemenis with life-threatening but manageable conditions have sought medical treatment abroad.

But the Saudi-led coalition, which has controlled Yemeni airspace on behalf of Yemen’s recognized government, has shut down commercial air traffic in and out of Sana’a. Only this year did the government and coalition consent to allow a long-promised medical air bridge to Cairo. 24 patients have been transported thus far. Tens of thousands have died waiting.

Credit: United Nations

Millions of Yemenis have already been forced from their homes, some of them multiple times to escape violence or pursue scarce opportunities for work. But even basic sanitation and health care in camps for displaced people are often unavailable.

Even with a massive aid response, as the conflict continues, we are fighting a rising tide. It goes without saying that in these cramped quarters, where social distancing is a fanciful notion and suppressed immunity the norm, a single infection would lead to countless deaths. The coronavirus epidemic would write new stories of suffering in Yemen’s already long tale of woe.

The conflict in Yemen must end before it claims any more lives. Yemen’s military and political leaders have shown too often these past five years that they are not willing to make even small compromises for the sake of their country and its people.

And the international community, so far, has failed to muster the resolve to demand the ceasefire and political settlement that can bring the life-saving peace that Yemen’s people demand.

With coronavirus knocking on Yemen’s door, we need humanitarian aid to restore our health systems, tackle the diseases currently ravaging our people, and prevent a new catastrophe. We cannot afford to wait for the next crisis to hits.

Excerpt:

Credit: Religions for Peace/RfP2020

By Azza Karam
NEW YORK, Mar 25 2020 (IPS)

I was able to take office as the secretary general to the largest global interfaith organization – Religions for Peace – with interreligious councils (IRCs) composed of senior-most religious leaders representing their religious institutions, in 90 countries, and 6 regional IRCs, a week before we had to ask all employees to work from home, in compliance with New York State law.

As a person who feels functional with direct and open communication, where I can get a sense of the person (or persons) I am talking with, having to take leadership over an office of people I can no longer be with, feels a little like trying to run with legs tied together. It can be done, but it is tough.

And this is now the new normal, not only in the US, but everywhere in the world. For the first time in recorded human history, coming together – even within and among nuclear families – is a dangerous option, literally done at the risk of health and lives.

Thanks to more and more governmental regulations designed to ‘flatten the curve’ of a deadly and racing rate of Covid-19 infections, ‘social distancing’ is identified as the only viable option until a vaccine can be developed and given. Social distancing literally means not being in the presence of one another.

In the last decade, several functionaries around the world were learning to communicate via many electronic means, which enabled us to ‘see’ each other, while being thousands of miles apart.

Some institutions were trying to move to reducing carbon footprint from travel, by hosting more and more meetings/conferences/presentations on-line.

Prof. Azza Karam. Credit: United Nations

But this was occasionally done. And it bears mention that when this was done, the sense was invariably colored by some dissatisfaction for those of us who appreciate actually being in the same space with those whom we can see and speak with.

Most theories of communication insist that nothing can replace being together and seeing one another face-to-face – even corridor talk can often make the difference between a peace deal and a continuing war.

This hampering of our ability to be in the presence of one another on a regular basis will definitely contribute to changing the world forever.

As businesses, finance, all levels of education, civic action, religious services, governance, intergovernmental affairs – almost every profession including even many forms of health care – now moves irrevocably to almost total and complete reliance on virtual communication, our words will matter more than ever.

What we say, the words we choose and use, and how we use them, will matter even more than they already did. And they already matter plenty, as increasing norms around “email etiquette” also testify for instance.

Use of words by political and religious leaders in particular, already make a big difference to the perception of impact and capacity. Some politicians are under heavy criticism for how they are reacting to the Covid-19 crises. Few are praised.

Credit: Religions for Peace/RfP2020

These perceptions are not only based on the laws and regulations being put in place (and when or how these happen). A great deal of value is also placed on the words used.

Words have an impact on human consciousness, something scientists have long studied, and many researchers and health services are committed to. Articulation and eloquence have long defined culture.

And ‘having a way with words’ is a way of either praising special capacity – or bemoaning ‘spin’. Words, and how they are used, is a large part of what many bemoan as ‘fake news’.

So, we know that words matter. Now that we move into virtual communication for everything from trade to learning, from industry to worship, words will matter more than ever.

It is time to learn how to speak with mercy, how to raise interest and make deals with words, how to speak truth to power, heal wounds, raise alerts, voice concerns, convince and impact, even how to show deep love, all with words.

Faith – in anything, from a government and political leader, to a policy, to public advocacy, to all manner of relationships – will have to be elucidated and demonstrated through the word. Never before, have words mattered to so many at all times.

Time to pay attention, therefore, to how we use the word. Time to listen, and to learn, from some of those who come from the oldest professions of using and understanding and translating the word.

Faith leaders themselves are learning to communicate to their communities and congregations, manage worship, very differently – but still very much rooted in the word.

This is why Religions for Peace has issued a call to all faith leaders from all traditions, ages, regions, and identities, to raise their voice in prayers for and with one another, and to share narratives and stories of love in times of Covid.

For it is time for the kind words to overflow to express love and realise healing for this earth and for one another. As we gaze upon this world, we recognize we have to contribute to new beginnings for all life. And in the beginning was the word.

And regardless of where we stand or what mission we serve, the word now has to be love/mercy/compassion/dignity for all life. This is the change we must realise to survive, and in Maya Angelou’s words, to thrive.

Excerpt:

Primary School students in Grenada are seen here working together to promote awareness on water conservation on World Water Day. Credit: Global Water Partnership

By Inge Kaul
BERLIN, Germany, Mar 20 2020 (IPS)

Water is essential and indispensable for life on earth. We know that; and many of us have perhaps heard, written and uttered these words themselves a ‘million’ times.

Therefore, I am astonished and increasingly worried about the relatively low-level of attention and priority accorded to water at the practical-political level.

Certainly, quite some attention has been paid to increasing people’s access to safe drinking water and sanitation services; and important progress has been achieved in this respect.

However, what will happen to this achievement, in the case of water scarcity – when pipes run dry? For many people and countries, an estimated one quarter of the world’s population, dried-up water pipes are not only a hypothetical risk but already reality.

Analysts warn that the spillovers from water scarcity can be serious and many.

Agricultural and industrial production, mining and transport could, for example, be disrupted, economic growth falter, social tensions, conflict and, even, war be funneled, leading, in turn, to swelling flows of internal displacement and international migration. Importantly, while some spillovers may ‘just’ be of local, national or regional reach others will be worldwide. Just think of the high volume of so-called virtual water trade.

About 40% of Europe’s water footprint is virtual water, i.e. water embedded in imported goods, including goods from water-stressed countries.

Clearly, water stress is a global challenge. It concerns us all, current and future human generations, animals and plants – the planet as a whole.

Given these facts and figures, isn’t it odd that policymakers tend to treat water as, what I call, a second-tier policy issue, i.e.: as a good (thing) that matters, because it is needed for the production of desired first-tier policy outcomes, such as wheat, maize, avocados, bananas, cotton (including cotton clothes), urban development and road construction, lithium mining, or swimming pools and other spa-facilities?

Water as an input is in high demand. Many need it; and forward-looking investors have already obtained water-use rights. Not only land-grabbing but water-grabbing, too, could soon intensify, as global warming proceeds.

But global warming is only one driver of water scarcity besides population growth and increasingly water-intensive production and consumption patterns. Water, too, is a most complex good and, importantly, one that is available only in limited supply, even if we manage its use carefully.

All the more to govern it efficiently and equitable so that it can meet to basic conditions viz. (i) be there for all and (ii) be used sustainably.

However, who is in charge of water at the national and international levels? Where is the global intergovernmental water forum mandated to address water as a global policy issue in its own right and complexity – a first-tier issue?

And who would be the national counterparts of this global intergovernmental water forum?

My impression is that we urgently need to build a global water architecture that deals with the various national and international, public and private facets of water in a comprehensive and integrated manner and is endowed with competencies and resources commensurate with water’s essential role for life on earth.

Therefore, on 22 March, this year’s World Water Day, let’s not just pour out more nice words about water as a human right or that progress towards SDG 6 should be scaled-up and accelerated. We said it all before. Let’s shift policy gears and translate words into deeds!

This year’s Water Day is the 27th! In three years, we will celebrate the 30th anniversary of this Day which was proclaimed in 1992 by the United Nations (UN) General Assembly and observed, for the first time, in 1993.

Therefore, my recommendation to concerned UN Member States, civil society and business is: Please, do consider requesting the UN Secretary-General to establish a small special commission on water security to hold worldwide multi-actor and stakeholder consultations on national and international water governance, report on its findings in the autumn of 2021 so that delegations have time in 2022 to prepare for a high-level debate and decision-making on a new global water governance architecture in 2023 –in honor of the 30th World Water Day.

Aren’t you, too, thirsting for water security, for doing first things first?

Excerpt:

Credit: IMF

By Saber Azam
GENEVA, Mar 16 2020 (IPS)

The fourth and last presidential election in Afghanistan on 28 September 2019 was yet another setback to the democratic process. Not only did it take months for the Independent Election Commission to announce the results but they were again marred by allegations of massive fraud that culminated with two candidates declaring themselves as winners.

The world witnessed two inaugurations taking place on the same day (9 March 2020) at the same hour albeit at two different locations but on the premises of the same Presidential Palace. The incumbent proclaimed a win with less than one million total votes, representing only 2.6% of the total estimated population; his rival contested.

This was yet another huge disappointment for the many Afghans who still entertained the hope that democracy could hold root despite the systematic misdeeds of the past 19 years.

The US alone has spent nearly a trillion US $ to “fix” this “broken state”! The cost of military and covert operations is certainly not included in this figure.

Additional related expenditures within the US such as caring for veterans as well as multilateral and bilateral contributions would most probably bring the amount of money spent, since Hamid Karzai was installed in 2001, to some three trillion US $, slightly less compared to 4.1 trillion spent during World War II.

Europe became a political and economic giant, following the implementation of the Marshall Plan that cost 13.3 billion US $ at the time, about 103.4 billion in today’s value. Why then, one may ask, does Afghanistan continue along a path to abyss.?

To understand the facts and hurdles, one must consider the origin of the current tragedy. During the Afghan war against the Soviet Union (1980-88), the West’s focus was on bringing the communist giant to its knees by “establishing a callous Islamic belt” around Stalin’s empire. “Jihadists” from around the world were recruited to go and fight “the force of evil” in Afghanistan.

Western support benefitted mostly extremist mujahidin movements. There was less concern about the corollaries of such an uncalculated policy. While the likes of Osama bin Laden were encouraged to join the “freedom fighters” in Afghanistan with advanced weaponry and money, no action was taken against extremist indoctrination and training of thousands of young Afghans in madrassas, known as the Taliban, by the mighty military intelligence services of Pakistan, the ISI.

Credit: NATO

Perhaps the pro-Soviet stance of the Indian government at the time as well as the tense US-Iran relationship pushed. Washington to rely on Pakistan alone as Central Asia was still under the Soviet yoke. The then US administration made it clear that beating the Soviet Union was the mother of priorities and that the rest will fall in place naturally.

The Geneva Agreement on Afghanistan in 1988 was then “crafted” to pave an “honorable” way for the Red Army to withdraw from Afghanistan. With the complete departure of Soviet troops, the US lost interest in this country, leaving the management of the post-Soviet situation into the hands of Pakistan which played a major role in the ensuing civil war among mujahidin factions that resulted in nearly 30’000 civilian deaths and the rise of the Taliban to power. Afghanistan then became a sanctuary for terrorists.

Despite misapplication of the sharia law (most Taliban fighters are oblivious to the true tenets of Islam), systematic violation of human rights, the practice of torture and summary killings, the International Community remained silent.

Did such a lassitude embolden Al-Qaeda to conceive, prepare and perpetrate the 9/11 attacks? The question will remain unanswered.

While the post 9/11 objective of the US was to “smoke [the terrorists] out”, none of the principal figures, the likes of Osama bin Laden, Ayman Al-Zawahiri and Mullah Omar were apprehended. The southern and eastern main border crossing points of Afghanistan were left open, allowing them to flee to safe-havens in Pakistan.

Only a few second and mainly third category terrorists were apprehended and incarcerated in Guantanamo. The killing of Osama bin Laden by the Obama administration in May 2011 was too little, too late.

In Afghanistan, the US relied essentially on corrupt, inept and inefficient governments that functioned on the basis of nepotism, tribalism and personal gains. Rule of law was systematically violated by Mafiosi groups that benefitted from personal protection of the leaders of the regime.

State institutions became “personal properties” of the incumbents and high dignitaries rather than serving the population. The International Community and donors could not trace the use of their assistance due to serious “security constraints” that many believe were created by the rulers and their associates.

No tangible measures were taken against election rigging and violation of the principles of democracy that became state practice. While the 2005 presidential election was in accordance with the determination of the people’s wish, the subsequent 2009, 2014 and 2019 polls were marred with massive fraud.

Now Afghanistan has two declared Presidents. Would this lead to an unprecedented “clash of titans” and the effective division of the country along ethnic lines resulting in further tragedies?

Since long, the people in Afghanistan have lost trust in slogans that promoted democracy and rule of law as divergence between the script and actions of both the government and the West proved evident.

Desperate to disengage from its longest war, the US deal with the Taliban presents many similarities to the agreement that the Soviet Union had struck in 1988. This time it is the US army that will leave Afghanistan with some degree of honor.

The Taliban can claim victory over the International Community and US-led NATO forces. The major concern is the eventual immunity and probable political and financial support that would be provided to a group that has committed mass murder, war crimes and genocide.

The idea of another “government of national unity” with the inclusion of the Taliban is extremely risky. They may even claim total power like the mujahidin did some 28 years ago. If so, let us pray that this time around, the consequences would be different and beneficial to the people of Afghanistan. However, the population is afraid of the consequences of the deal.

With a polycephaly in Afghanistan, a fearless terrorist organization awaiting withdrawal of NATO troops, rampant corruption, division along ethnic and tribal affiliations, lack of accountability for crimes committed, and absence of an honest inter-Afghan understanding, the US plan has little chance of succeeding.

Democracy cannot be built on shaky foundations. Since the arrival of the coalition troops in 2001, democratic principles, institutions and behavior did not take root in Afghanistan. It is high time to opt for a new strategy and support wholly new leaders.

There is need to craft the future of the country around a comprehensive nation building program. Moreover, young, incorruptible and open-minded local figures, disposed to build institutions that would serve the population must be supported. Further delay to change the fundamental approach and to back a new team will enduringly harm our sacred principles of compassion!

*Polycephaly is a condition of having more than one head. The term is derived from the Greek stems poly- (Greek: “πολύ”) meaning ‘much’ and kephali- (Greek: “κεφάλι”) meaning “head”, and encompasses bicephaly and dicephaly (both referring to two-headedness).

For more information about the author, please refer to http://www.saberazam.com

Excerpt:

By Mavic Cabrera-Balleza
NEW YORK, Mar 13 2020 (IPS)

Where are the women and youth peacebuilders in the Beijing+25 and the Generation Equality Forum processes?

Their absence raises serious questions about the effectivity and coherence of the work of the UN on gender equality since armed conflict is both a cause and a consequence of gender inequality.

Over the last five months, I have spent most of my waking and sleeping hours strategizing with our team at the Global Network of Women Peacebuilders (GNWP) about how to keep peace and security on the agenda of the Generation Equality Forum (GEF), the incarnation of the 25th anniversary of the Fourth World Conference on Women.

Many of our friends and allies within the Women and Peace and Security community ask me: Is it worth putting our limited time and resources into trying to participate in these bureaucratic and non-binding processes? Is it worth engaging with government and UN bureaucracies to advance our feminist agendas?

My answer to these questions is a resounding yes! But only if women and youth peacebuilders are part of the process. Here is why.

An inspiration for the Women and Peace and Security and Youth, Peace and Security agendas

Nearly 25 years ago, in August and September 1995, more than 30,000 women from around the world convened in Beijing, China to participate in the Fourth World Conference and NGO Forum on Women.

It was a watershed moment for the global women’s movement not only because of its magnitude, but mainly because it brought forth the Beijing Declaration and the Platform for Action (BPFA), by far the most comprehensive global agenda for women’s empowerment and gender equality.

The BPFA set strategic objectives and actions for the advancement of women and the achievement of gender equality in 12 critical areas of concerns, ranging from women and poverty to women and armed conflict, and women’s human rights.

The BPFA resulted in the establishment of more than 100 national institutions for women’s advancement, including Ministries of Gender in many countries. It led to advocacy for—and the adoption of—the UN Security Council Resolution 1325 on Women and Peace and Security (UNSCR 1325) in October 2000.

The adoption of the UNSCR 1325 was a major achievement and a result of the unyielding work of women peacebuilders around the world. It established a normative framework for women’s meaningful participation in decision-making, conflict resolution, conflict prevention and peacebuilding; as well as protection of women and girls’ rights, and prevention of sexual and gender-based violence in conflict-affected situations.

For those of us who are working towards the effective implementation of the Women and Peace and Security (WPS) and the Youth and Peace and Security (YPS) agendas, the BPFA is a foundation document and a model for robust civil society ownership and participation.

It stands alongside the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) and the UN Security Council Resolutions on WPS and YPS as one of the most important international instruments on women’s rights, youth rights, and gender equality.

More than two decades later, the Generation Equality Forum (GEF) is underway. Much like the Beijing Conference and Platform for Action, the GEF and its outcomes will not be legally binding.

This raises concerns among some civil society groups as to the resources and energy spent on these processes. Indeed, forums and conferences use up considerable resources; and the laws and policies that come out of them are, after all, just words on paper.

Nonetheless, with strong civil society ownership and participation, the GEF can lead to outcomes that shape not only laws and policies, but concrete actions on women’s rights and gender equality. In the same way that the Beijing Conference and the Platform for Action did.

A test of legitimacy and accountability of the Generation Equality Forum

The success of the GEF and its outcomes are dependent on the extent and quality of the participation of civil society groups representing diverse issues and initiatives.

In line with the accountability framework for the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action, the GEF process aims to map progress and reactivate commitments to implementation. It proposes to do so by launching Action Coalitions, which will catalyze collective action, spark global, inter-generational conversations, and deliver results to further advance equality for women and girls.

This is where a major problem arises. Women peacebuilders and youth peacebuilders are not represented in the decision-making structure of the GEF. As a result, WPS and YPS have been left out from the Action Coalitions identified by the Forum organizers.

This is particularly astounding, since the WPS and YPS agendas are integral to all three pillars of the United Nations—peace and security, human rights and development. Equally important, the exclusion of WPS and YPS raises serious questions about the scope of civil society consultations, and how decisions are made in the GEF.

Many years of experience in the women’s movement tells us that the legitimacy of—and accountability to—decisions on women’s rights and gender equality largely depend on the participation and ownership of civil society organizations representing women’s interests that may be impacted by such decisions.

Call for an Action Coalition on Women and Peace and Security and Youth, Peace and Security

WPS and YPS agendas are critical to realizing the promise of the BPFA. They cannot be effectively mainstreamed in any of the six Action Coalitions. Recognizing this, more than 150 feminist, grassroots women’s rights organizations and networks from around the world sent an Open Letter to the Governments of France and Mexico and UN Women, expressing concern about the serious risk of leaving out key priorities and needs of women and youth peacebuilders in the GEF.

Their call was backed by the Civil Society Advisory Group to the GEF, the UN High-Level Advisory Group for the 2015 Global Study on UNSCR 1325, and the Government of South Africa who supported the establishment of a stand-alone Action Coalition on WPS and YPS.

As the GEF process unfolds, its organizers must acknowledge the diversity of women’s issues. They also need to recognize civil society as a partner on equal footing with the Governments of France and Mexico, and UN Women. This means responding to the reverberating calls of the more than 150 feminist and women’s rights organizations, and the Civil Society Advisory Group to form a stand-alone Action Coalition on WPS and YPS.

Marking the 25th anniversary of the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action, the Generation Equality Forum presents a global momentum to advance gender equality. Yet, to date, it fails to address the biggest and most persistent challenge that the international community confronts: armed conflicts that are becoming more and more vicious and fragmented.

As UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has said in his January 22, 2020 speech to the General Assembly, the lack of peace and security remains as one of greatest threats to 21st century progress.

Is Beijing +25 worth civil society’s limited time and resources? Yes, but only if it fully integrates peace and security at its core and meaningfully includes women and youth peacebuilders to achieve it.

Excerpt:

By Dr. Azza Karam and Rev. Kyoichi Sugino
NEW YORK, Mar 9 2020 (IPS)

As a growing public health crisis becomes increasingly urgent, prominent global actors and institutions, including the United Nations, are confronted by the realisation that all hands on deck are required to address the cross-cutting challenges faced by our world today.

Another public health epidemic is but one of the major global challenges demanding coordinated and effective responses from diverse institutions, and civil society networks.

Income inequality continues to grow, with the world’s richest 1% in 2020 having twice as much wealth as 6.9 billion people.

The political and economic will critical to combatting climate change is more needed than ever, with virtually all States behind in their commitments to the Paris Agreement.

With communities ravaged by ongoing conflict, a record 70 million people have fled their homes. As calls for change echo across the globe, the percentage of people living in countries where civic space is considered “repressed” more than doubled in 2019.

Fundamental elements essential to securing human dignity – the opportunity to contribute meaningfully to society, the power to demand change, freedom from any and all forms of discrimination, and the ability to live within and nurture a sustainable environment – are rapidly eroding.

These challenges are striking at a time when multilateralism is threatened, space for civil society is shrinking, and the call for walls of separation are on the rise.

The opportunity to forge ahead as humanity through this turmoil may well exist within the deepest and widest infrastructures ever created and sustained by humankind: the world’s religious communities, to which over 80% of humanity claims some affiliation.

In recent years, international attention has undeniably been focused on the rise in religiously-motivated violence, furthering the focus on religion as (part of) the problem.

However, a relatively lesser known reality in parallel with these trends, may offer insights to solutions: a growing global network of believers working to address these challenges through a unique process of multi-religious peacebuilding.

These religious leaders and constituents hail from an array of religious and spiritual communities as diverse and complex as the world we live in. They are collaborating on, and implementing, development, humanitarian, and peace processes – guiding their societies towards cohesion, respect for differences and cultures of peace.

By convening in interreligious councils, representative of their religious institutions, leadership and communities, at national and regional levels, Religions for Peace – a multi-religious peacebuilding coalition with experienced interreligious platforms in 90 countries across six regions – has a unique and powerful mechanism for multi-religious collaboration and peacebuilding.

The 2020-2025 global Strategic Plan is the culmination of sustained multistakeholder debates and consensus-building, within the vast movement of Religions for Peace.

At the Religions for Peace 10th World Assembly in August 2019, over 1,000 representatives from 125 countries discerned a framework by which to organise their future collaborative action on these global challenges.

Another global consultation in December 2019 convened over 250 religious leaders to do a deep dive, with focused and honest deliberations, ultimately emerging with the consensus to prioritise six strategic goals: peaceful, just and inclusive societies; gender equality; environment; freedom of thought, conscience and religion; interreligious education; and global partnerships.

Uniting religious and indigenous leaders for the protection of tropical forests is a hallmark of the joint prioritisation of nurturing a sustainable environment, believed to be a matter of moral urgency and action.

The religious leaders also agreed to champion safeguarding the universal right to thought, conscience and religion within and beyond their own constituencies, including in this spectrum of commitments coordinating their responses to the rise in attacks on holy sites and places of worship.

They embraced a deeper focus on interreligious education – not to reinvent the wheel, but to collate the existing work and curricula in all corners of the world in an effort to facilitate knowledge and access to dispel ignorance and counter misconceptions at the root of intolerance, hatred and violence.

The Religions for Peace movement leaders also committed to scaling up multi-stakeholder partnerships with businesses, governments and civil society, to develop innovative approaches and seek resolutions together.

These goals and actions correspond to the Sustainable Development Goals Agenda, and the multi-religious efforts will be measured and assessed using the SDG indicators agreed to by all member states of the United Nations.

The strategic priorities identified are built on legacies of powerful and effective interventions. Throughout Religions for Peace’s 50 years, these interreligious platforms have amassed a solid record of multi-religious engagement including mediating conflict and negotiating the release of child hostages in Sierra Leone, providing care and support for orphans and vulnerable children affected by HIV/AIDS, mobilising 21 million multi-religious youth for global disarmament, and forging partnerships between religious and indigenous communities for rainforest protection – to name but a few.

But these priorities also herald a new era of resolve, and courage, among the world’s senior-most religious leaders and institutions, through their interreligious platforms.

To have gender equality as a strategic priority of such a movement, built on and by traditional religious institutions, is historic. After electing the coalition’s first woman Secretary General in 2019, Religions for Peace leadership are sending a clear message of commitment to action which includes increasing women’s leadership and impact within the movement, and beyond.

It is this blend of renewed and courageous resolve, together with skills steeped in decades of experience with multi-religious and multi-cultural engagement in development and human rights, which offers much needed alternative cultures of healing and peace. These interreligious councils not only drive the solution — they are a necessary part of the solution.

On this 75th year of the United Nations system, Religions for Peace – through its global, regional, national and grassroots interreligious council platforms – has been heeding the call for holistic responses to cross-cutting global challenges for 50 of these years.

With its 5-year strategy and actions now co-designed and approved by representatives of all the world’s religious institutions, the movement of Religions for Peace hereby calls on governments, civil societies and multi-lateral institutions to partner with it to create more peaceful, just and inclusive societies – leaving no one behind.

Excerpt:

Credit: Pedro Armestre / Greenpeace

By Jennifer Morgan
AMSTERDAM, the Netherlands, Mar 5 2020 (IPS)

Gender inequality – like the climate emergency – is not inevitable, but is kept in place by the poor choices too many cis men make on a daily basis. And it is not just womxn who are hurt and trapped by this patriarchal problem, but girls and non-binary people too, as well as many boys and men.

For millennia, gender inequality has been working very well for the majority of men. Globally, men hold 85% of senior leadership roles in companies, for example, while the 22 richest men in the world have more wealth than all of the womxn in Africa. None of this is by accident and many men are reluctant to change a system they think benefits them.

Meanwhile womxn remain on the frontlines of gender inequality and the climate emergency. And due to the patriarchy, unsurprisingly they are rarely heard on issues that deeply impact them, which as a result, affects society as a whole.

A great number of men do believe in gender equality and this needs to be acknowledged. But it is easy for men to merely ‘believe’ in something they subsequently reap social rewards for. Accepting that gender inequality exists – as much as the climate emergency – and taking positive action is crucial if we are to achieve a more equitable, peaceful and green planet.

Because the fact is equity across the world and spectrum would lead to more life satisfaction, better security and economies, and more sustainable solutions to climate change.

That’s why this International Women’s Day, I call on men to be more than feminist; to do more than just celebrate womxn.

For a start, we need men to be anti-patriarchal and anti-misogynist, and to be actively campaigning against climate denial, for the benefit of all. Only then would we begin to get closer to the #IWD2020 theme of equality.

Jennifer Morgan

What I am calling for may sound overwhelming, but small individual changes in attitude can lead to huge progressive shifts in the stale social norms that are damaging too many people at our collective detriment.

“We are all parts of a whole. Our individual actions, conversations, behaviors and mindsets can have an impact on our larger society,” as the IWD organizers say.

Men can proactively start to promote gender equality in the spaces they dominate in many straightforward ways: by listening to womxn and not talking over them; crediting them for their ideas; rejecting male only settings; ensuring womxn are included on panels and sports teams; refusing to play into stereotypes, and calling out others who are being anti-womxn, anti-diversity and anti-science.

In my privileged position as a white Western female leading a global and diverse environmental organization, I strive to use my leadership to empower and protect, and include people of all backgrounds.

It often strikes me how I have more access to the halls of power than those with the experience of living on the frontlines of the climate emergency. Those dealing with the devastating droughts, floods and fires linked to climate change, who predominantly are womxn who are Black, Indigenous, of color, from the Global South.

They are truly powerful people, from whom I get much inspiration, and yet their voices remain too often unheard by decision-makers, policymakers, the media, and beyond, due to the patriarchy. Amplifying these womxn’s voices and increasing their access to opportunities and platforms is central to my mission, and the mission of Greenpeace.

For there can be no green peace without gender equality. At Greenpeace, we aspire to become a leader in building and supporting a workforce that more accurately reflects the diversity of the global community Greenpeace serves, as well as the values the organization espouses, and have initiatives on harassment prevention, unconscious bias and structural power.

We take a zero-tolerance position on sexual, verbal, or physical harassment, bullying and any kind of discrimination based on gender, race, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, faith, or any other aspect of our beings.

We will continue to examine how systematic marginalization and issues of equity intersect with our core mission and values as Greenpeace. We do this work readily because people power is linked to virtually everything Greenpeace does, from the impact we can make in the world to our ability to thrive as part of a movement.

We must always try to act in a way that sees, values, and embraces people in all their diversity. Boosting the voices of those the patriarchy actively tries to silence will lead to greater equity and better climate solutions.

Remarkable womxn are already leading the charge from Autumn Peltier and Brianna Fruean, the matriarchs of Wet’suwet’en fighting the Coastal Gas Link pipeline, to Vanessa Nakata and Winona LaDuke, among the many others.

But the patriarchy is man-made, much like climate change. It is more than time for cis men to combat gender inequality and the climate emergency alongside womxn, whom they should truly accept as their equals.

Excerpt:

Patrícia Campos Mello. Credit: Marcos Villas Boas

By Natalie Southwick and Renata Neder
NEW YORK, Mar 4 2020 (IPS)

Brazilian journalist Patrícia Campos Mello made her career reporting from conflict zones around the world — but lately, the greatest threats to her security are coming from closer to home.

In recent weeks, Campos Mello has faced a violent onslaught of crude threats and personal attacks, after a witness in a Congressional hearing suggested she had offered to trade sexual favors for information.

The unfounded allegations spread on WhatsApp and Twitter, fed by trolls and politicians sharing memes calling her a “prostitute,” and spilled over into the public conversation, with President Jair Bolsonaro repeating the claims in a February 18 interview.

“It’s an attempt to discredit the work of us female journalists,” says political journalist Juliana Dal Piva, who has also been harassed for reporting on the president and his family. “When the articles are critical of Bolsonaro, this is the attack. They imply that journalists are willing to trade sex for information.”

From denied opportunities to workplace harassment, attacks by troll armies, sexual violence and even femicide, the job description for female journalists in Latin America has some horrifying drawbacks.

Most governments and workplaces still lack proper mechanisms to respond to these threats, leaving female reporters to come up with survival tactics on their own.

For most male journalists, danger lies in the field — but for women, the office can pose a threat, too. In 2017, Bolivian television journalist Yadira Peláez was fired from a state TV station after reporting her boss for sexual harassment — then the station sued her for “economic damage.”

A 2017 survey of almost 400 women journalists in 50 countries found that 38 percent of incidents of gender-based violence against women journalists came from a boss or supervisor.

The lurid attacks on women like Campos Mello play on an old sexist trope: the glamorous journalist who, in the process of reporting a big scoop, falls in love — or at least into bed — with her source.

The reality is closer to the opposite. In a 2017 survey of nearly 500 female journalists in Brazil, 10 percent said they had received offers of exclusive information or materials in exchange for sex.

Although sources are more likely to try to negotiate a date in exchange for an interview, female journalists are the ones who face professional consequences for any rumor of impropriety.

They are the ones whose social media profiles are scoured, private information shared, personal photos downloaded and turned into memes, who open their email to a deluge of violent threats — stalking, rape, murder, photos of dismembered bodies — and who must keep doing their job.

To attack a male journalist’s credibility, go after his work or objectivity. To attack a female journalist’s credibility, go after her body.

For women in the public eye, their physical appearance, personal relationships, professional histories and families all become fair game. Dal Piva says her greatest fear is that the campaigns against her might expose her family members to similar harassment.

The attacks are even harsher against women of color and queer women, like Brazil’s Maria Júlia Coutinho, or sports reporter Fernanda Gentil, who has talked openly about the homophobia she faced in 2016 when her relationship with another woman became public.

While threats against female reporters are a universal truth, they have frightening implications in Latin America, a region with some of the world’s highest violent death rates for women.

Since 1992, 96 women journalists have been killed in connection with their work. Eleven of those were in Latin America — all but two in either Mexico or Colombia.

Yet despite institutional barriers, threats and sexist smear campaigns, Latin America’s female reporters continue setting the standard, leading newsrooms, developing innovative projects and pushing the envelope on what journalism can — and should — do.

And they are fighting back. As the #MeToo movement has rippled through offices and newsrooms, its effects appear in coordinated efforts among female journalists to support and protect one another.

After Bolsonaro’s comments on Campos Mello, nearly 850 women journalists published an open letter protesting the “sordid and false attacks.”

In 2018, after a series of on-camera assaults targeted female soccer reporters, a group of Brazilian journalists launched the #DeixaElaTrabalhar (#LetHerWork) campaign, pressuring authorities to take action against sexual harassment on and off the field.

A year earlier, a group in Mexico launched an NGO, Versus, to combat “abuse, violence and discrimination” against women reporters. Colombian journalist Jineth Bedoya, herself a survivor of sexual violence, has for decades been an outspoken advocate for safety for women journalists and justice for survivors.

CPJ and other organizations, including the International Federation of Journalists and the International Association of Women in Radio and TV, have resources on how to protect accounts from hacks or doxing, responding to online harassment, and preventing sexual violence.

While preventative steps and advice are useful in the moment, they don’t address the source of the problem: a professional and societal context that devalues the work and presence of women, and often pressures women to simply be quiet — something out of character for successful journalists.

Fighting those norms will be a long-term battle, but Latin America’s women journalists are ready.

*The Committee to Protect Journalists is an independent, nonprofit organization that promotes press freedom worldwide. Press inquiries: press@cpj.org +1-212-300-9032

Latest Data:
250 journalists imprisoned as of Dec 1, 2019
Journalists killed globally (updated regularly)

Excerpt:

Iffat, humanitarian public health promoter for Oxfam, talks to Rohingya refugees Asia Bibi*, son Anwar* and daughter Nur* in the camps in Cox's Bazar, Bangladesh. Iffat was part of the Oxfam emergency response team working to provide vital aid including clean water, food vouchers and toilets. Credit: Abbie Trayler-Smith/ Oxfam

By Anna Tonelli
NEW YORK, Mar 3 2020 (IPS)

This International Women’s Day, 25 years after we first heard it declared that “women’s rights are human rights” at the historic Beijing 1995 Fourth World Conference on Women, we need to take the space and time to reflect on just how far we’ve come – and just how much more work there is to do.

This year, achievements in the quest for recognizing women’s rights, leadership, and voice must be celebrated; but more than anything we need to double down and hold governments and other powerbrokers to account – to be part of the movement to ensure women’s rights are actually respected as human rights once and for all.

Every March, women arrive in New York from around the world to do just that – to advocate for the implementation of the myriad commitments that international decision-makers have made to the realization of women’s rights.

Tucked away in a small corner of Manhattan, the yearly Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) at the UN brings thousands of women and allies together to connect and learn from each other, and to hold their governments accountable.

This year would have been historic as more than 12,000 people had registered to join this conference, a testament to the importance of Beijing’s anniversary and the commitments it produced.

Sadly, this series of events has been postponed due to the Coronavirus – a grim but important reminder of how interconnected our world has become, and how much we must rely on each other to protect ourselves and make progress.

Anna Tonelli

Oxfam, just one small piece of this moment was set to bring 22 partners to participate – activists and leaders from places like Russia, India, Palestine, Zambia and Bolivia.

Oxfam and our partners were to host events and conversations on issues ranging from gender-based violence, women land rights, fundamentalism in Latin America and Russia, women and climate, natural and resource governance and unpaid care work. These issues and conversations may not be happening in person next week, but they must still go on.

Right now is a critical moment for Latin America, and Oxfam staff and our partners are speaking out against the chronic violation of women’s rights and feminicides that have become the norm in the last years.

It is where the rise of fundamentalism, toxic masculinity, and extreme authoritarianism have created a wave of impunity and normalization of human rights violations.

As we have watched forests burn, air quality suffer and temperatures rise, women from Zambia, India, Colombia and more are pushing for transformative feminist leadership and climate-just governance for natural resources like coal, oil and other extractive industries – and for the intrinsic connection between women’s rights and the climate crisis to be more widely recognized.

As inequality spirals out of control, Oxfam is calling for an end to our sexist economies that have put us in the position where the richest 22 men in the world have more wealth than all the women in Africa.

It’s no accident that while most billionaires are men, women do more than three-quarters of all unpaid care work, and when they do work, dominate the least secure and lowest-paid jobs. These are just more barriers women face when trying to make a difference and lead in their communities.

Dorothy, 27, stands inside the house she is rebuilding with her brother, in the village of Malambwe, southern Malawi, following the flooding brought on by Cyclone Idai. Dorothy’s house collapsed and the floodwaters carrying away many of her belongings, as well as some of her livestock. She took her four year old child, and went to higher ground to escape the floodwaters. Credit: Philip Hatcher-Moore/Oxfam

Even as thousands had plans to travel and convene at CSW, this space was never open for all. Travel restrictions and statelessness had stopped plans to have a Rohingya leader join from Bangladesh to help launch an Oxfam report highlighting Rohingya women’s challenges, priorities and leadership.

It calls for an immediate focus on addressing the root causes of the crisis, better supporting women to meet their basic needs with dignity and further enabling their leadership in decision-making at all levels.

Many women caught in some of the world’s worst humanitarian crises and conflicts – like Yemen, Syria and South Sudan – also do not have access to these opportunities due to instability at home, threats to their safety, and the discriminatory Muslim Ban enacted by the Trump administration.

The postponement of CSW is a reminder of the women’s voices we must always be amplifying around the world during these moments and in between. Whether we’re together in New York or spread around the globe, acts of solidarity through elevating women’s stories and demands on social media, signing petitions for national decision-makers, and joining campaigns make all the difference.

We also need to see more women and men in power who support women and who will put forward a feminist foreign policy. On International Women’s Day and every day, we have a duty to shine a light on these women and the efforts they are making to realize their rights. In a time of increasing anxiety about health, politics, climate and more – we should appreciate the advocates and leaders who paved the way for anniversaries like Beijing, and celebrate the communities of smart, driven, tireless women who continue to push for a more inclusive and just world.

Excerpt: