Africa

Two political rivals go head-to-head once again in the hotly contested 16 September poll.

By Katsuhiro Asagiri
TOKYO, Sep 1 2025 (IPS)

Marking the United Nations’ International Day Against Nuclear Tests, young activists and experts gathered at the UN University in Tokyo for an event titled “The Role of Youth in Supporting Global Hibakusha.” The forum underscored how youth solidarity can amplify the voices of survivors of nuclear testing and bombings, known collectively as the “Global Hibakusha” — communities scarred by the use, production, and testing of nuclear weapons, from Hiroshima to the Marshall Islands — and strengthen global momentum toward nuclear abolition.

The event was part conference, part call to arms. Its message was clear: the nuclear age is not a matter of history, but a crisis that continues to live in the bodies, memories, and struggles of people worldwide. And young people, the organizers emphasized, must shoulder the responsibility of carrying those voices forward.

Youth Survey on Nuclear Awareness

Daiki Nakazawa (right) and Momoka Abe(left) presenting the final results of a Youth Peace Awareness Survey. Credit: Katsuhiro Asagiri

The forum was convened by five groups with a history of advocacy: International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW), the Qazaq Nuclear Frontline Coalition, Soka Gakkai International (SGI), the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung (FES) Kazakhstan, and Marshallese Educational Initiative (MEI).

The five organizations presented the final results of a Youth Peace Awareness Survey, conducted between January 6 and August 9, across five countries—the United States, Australia, Kazakhstan, Japan, and the Marshall Islands. Targeting youth aged 18 to 35, the survey drew responses from 1,580 participants, examining their knowledge of nuclear weapons, attitudes, and readiness for action.

“In every country surveyed, those who had heard the testimony of survivors were more likely to be taking action for nuclear abolition,” said Daiki Nakazawa, a representative from SGI Youth. “It shows that listening to Hibakusha is not simply remembrance. It is a catalyst for activism.”

His colleague, Momoka Abe, added that for their generation, survivor accounts “remain one of the most powerful ways to understand both the human costs of nuclear weapons and the urgency of preventing their use.”

Remembering Kazakhstan’s Nuclear Legacy

Semipalatinsk Former Nuclear Weapon Test site. Credit: Katsuhiro Asagiri

A live online dialogue linked participants in Tokyo with Almaty, Kazakhstan. Medet Suleimen of FES Kazakhstan recalled his country’s tragic legacy: during the Soviet era, 456 nuclear tests were conducted at the Semipalatinsk Nuclear Test site in the country’s northeast, directly affecting some 1.5 million people and their descendants.

He reminded the Tokyo audience that much of the data on those tests was removed to Moscow during the Soviet collapse, leaving independent assessments patchy at best. “The consequences are still poorly understood,” he said. “But the human suffering is clear.”

Kazakhstan’s government closed the Semipalatinsk site in 1991, the year of its independence, and voluntarily renounced the world’s fourth-largest nuclear arsenal. It was that historic gesture that the U.N. chose to honor when it designated August 29 as a global day against nuclear testing in 2009.

A Japanese Perspective

Kazakhstan presided over the 3rd meeting of state parties to TPNW which will take place at the United Nations Headquarters in New York between March 3 and 7 in 2025. Credit: Katsuhiro Asagiri, President of INPS Japan

For young Japanese, the nuclear legacy is both intimate and distant. Hiroshima and Nagasaki remain central to national memory, but the experience of other nuclear victims — Indigenous Australians, Pacific islanders, Kazakhs — often lies beyond the frame.

Yuki Nihei, an SGI youth who traveled to New York in March for the Third Meeting of States Parties to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), recounted a moment that made that gap vivid. At a side event on Global Hibakusha, she listened to testimony from an Indigenous Australian exposed to British nuclear tests.

“There was no warning. No consent. And to this day, they receive little compensation, and their suffering is barely acknowledged,” she said. “While Hiroshima and Nagasaki are often recalled in Japan as historical tragedies, but hearing from Global Hibakusha shows that nuclear harm is present-tense. A lot of people are still suffering now.”

That realization, she said, pushed her to think differently about solidarity:“As a Japanese youth, I want to stand with Global Hibakusha in pursuit of genuine nuclear abolition.”

The Treaty and Its Challenges

The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, signed 20 September 2017 by 50 United Nations member states. Credit: UN Photo / Paulo Filgueiras

Keita Takagaki from the Youth Community for Global Hibakusha emphasized the groundbreaking nature of the TPNW, which for the first time obligates states to provide assistance to victims and undertake environmental remediation (Articles 6 and 7). But he was quick to acknowledge the difficulties: the refusal of nuclear-armed states to join, friction between governments and nongovernmental groups, and the limited resources of many Global South states that are party to the treaty. “The challenges are real,” he said. “But so is the vision. We need to keep pushing to make it real.”

Takagaki also offered a note of caution against reducing youth activism to inheritance. “We often hear that young people should ‘carry on the voices of Hibakusha,’” he said. “That is important, but it is not enough. Each of us must also decide what kind of society we want to build — and take responsibility for creating it.”

Kazakhstan’s Call for Action

Anvar Milzatillayev, Counselor of the Embassy of Kazakhstan in Japan.　Credit: Katsuhiro Asagiri

Anvar Milzatillayev, Counselor of the Embassy of Kazakhstan in Japan, reaffirmed his country’s post-independence choice to pursue peace without nuclear weapons. He called the event “vital not only to remember past tragedies but to inspire concrete action for the future.” Commenting on the survey finding that many young respondents wished to act for nuclear abolition but “did not know how,” he said this highlighted the need for campaigns to be more accessible and participatory.

“Testimonies of survivors must continue to be shared,” he stressed, “because they have the power to transform awareness into action.” Milzatillayev expressed confidence in the “three powers of youth”—to spread the truth of nuclear harm, to connect across borders, and to mobilize society—adding: “Together with young people of Kazakhstan, Japan, and around the world, we will support the Global Hibakusha and build a nuclear-free future. I truly believe this is possible.”

Professor Tshilidzi Marwala, the Rector of the United Nations University, also emphasized the responsibility to carry forward the voices of all those affected by nuclear weapons. Renewing the United Nations’ founding pledge “to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war,” he called on the generations who will shape the future to take action for peace with foresight and courage.

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

IPS UN Bureau

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');  

A view of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) at the Peace Palace in The Hague. Credit: UN Photo/ICJ-CIJ/Frank van Bee

By Daniel D. Bradlow
PRETORIA, South Africa, Sep 1 2025 (IPS)

African sovereign debtors in distress face terrible choices. They are often forced to choose between fully paying their creditors and financing the needs of their populations – health, education, renewable energy, water.

Discussions with their creditors focus on financial, economic and contractual issues. The environmental and social impacts of their situation are largely excluded from negotiations.

Thanks to the initiative of some Vanuatan law students, this may be about to change.

Vanuatu is a country consisting of small islands in the south Pacific. It has been ranked as one of the countries most affected by climate change, facing threats of rising sea levels and storm surges. In 2019, a law professor in Vanuatu, Justin Rose, asked his students to propose ways to deal with the climate threat confronting their country.

They suggested that Vanuatu ask the United Nations general assembly to request an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice on the international legal obligations of states regarding climate change. They convinced their government to adopt their proposal. They also mobilised international support, saying they wanted to take the world’s biggest problem to the world’s highest court.

In 2023, the UN general assembly agreed to seek the International Court of Justice’s advice on the following two issues: the obligations of states under international law to protect the environment from the impact of human-caused greenhouse gas emissions and
the legal consequences for states if they fail to meet these obligations and thereby cause significant environmental harm for present and future generations.

The case attracted unprecedented attention. The court received over 150 written submissions. Over 100 states and international organisations made oral presentations in nine days of public hearings. On 23 July 2025, the International Court of Justice issued a unanimous advisory opinion. It was only the fifth time in its nearly 80-year history to do so.

The court’s opinion was that the obligations of states extend beyond the treaties they have signed and ratified. They also include obligations arising from customary international law. This is the law that states practise out of a sense of legal obligation. It is binding on all states and international organisations, regardless of whether they have signed any applicable treaty.

The rules that matter

The court declared that there are two relevant customary international legal obligations.

The first is a duty to prevent significant harm to the environment. This requires states to exercise due diligence before acting in ways that could cause environmental damage. They must assess both the probability of causing serious harm and the likely extent of any expected impacts.

In making these assessments, states must take into account current binding and non-binding international standards. It also requires states to ensure that companies and individuals subject to their jurisdiction comply with these duties.

The second is a duty to cooperate with other states to protect the environment and to help solve international problems of an economic, social, cultural or humanitarian nature. Here, the court opined that a healthy environment is a pre-condition for the enjoyment of human rights. It affects the rights to life, health and livelihoods, and the rights of children, women and indigenous people.

The court, in discussing the second issue, advised that states can be held legally responsible if they do not take all measures within their power to prevent significant environmental harm. It noted that while all states have this duty, its precise contents will vary depending on their capabilities. The critical factor is the effort the states make and not the results they produce.

The debt angle

Although the court’s opinion is only advisory, it is likely to be highly influential. It was informed by a wide range of submissions. It was a unanimous decision of 15 judges who come from 15 countries.

The fact that the court grounded its decision, in part, on customary international environmental and human rights grounds means that it has implications for any state actions that can have significant adverse impacts on climate, the environment and customary human rights.

My work as an international lawyer working on sovereign debt and development finance convinces me that this includes the renegotiation or restructuring of African debt.

Whatever action African sovereign debtors take to deal with their debt crisis will affect their ability to manage their greenhouse gas emissions. It will also affect their ability to deliver on their obligations to their citizens’ rights. These include the rights to life, health and livelihoods.

This suggests that African sovereign debtors and their creditors need to understand the environmental and climate impacts of their transactions.

They must also work together to resolve their transactions’ negative environmental, social, economic and cultural impacts. Their respective responsibilities will differ depending on their capabilities.

The International Court of Justice opinion may therefore offer new opportunities to make debtor and creditor states, and creditor institutions, accept responsibility for the environmental and social impacts of their actions.

Three possible avenues for relief

There could be at least three ways to relate the climate opinion to debt.

First, the debtor and its stakeholders can use the decision to bolster their arguments for including the environmental and social impacts of debt in their negotiations. They can point out that the debtor state cannot avoid international legal responsibility for the effects of the transaction on its greenhouse gas emissions and on the human rights of its citizens.

They can also point out that its creditors and their home states also have a legal obligation to assess these impacts and cooperate in managing them.

Second, the stakeholders can remind both the sovereign debtor and its creditors about the content of their international legal responsibilities. There are international norms and standards that can help establish that content.

Some of them are:

UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights
the UNCTAD Principles on Promoting Responsible Sovereign Borrowing and Lending
the UN Global Compact
the OECD Principles of Responsible Conduct for Multinational Enterprises
the World Bank Environmental and Social Framework.

In addition, there are many private financial institutions that have human rights and environmental and social policies that often specifically refer to these international standards.

Third, drawing inspiration from the Vanuatu law students, activists around the world can use the judgment to strengthen their arguments. They can say that creditor and debtor states have an international legal duty to prevent significant harm to the environment and to cooperate to protect the environment. This duty extends to ensuring that companies and individuals subject to their jurisdiction act in conformity with these duties. They can be held legally responsible for failing to comply with these duties.

Finally, there are international mechanisms that non-state actors can use to hold debtors and creditors accountable for failing to perform their duties. These include the National Contact Points. These exist in each state that has signed on to the OECD Principles of Responsible Conduct for Multinational Enterprises. Another possibility is the independent accountability mechanisms in the multilateral development banks.

There are also the courts in the growing number of states in which governments, central banks and private actors have been sued for violating their obligations to climate change.

States and financial institutions, of course, can avoid these consequences by respecting the court’s opinion and developing ways of managing African sovereign debt that comply with its international legal advice.

Daniel D. Bradlow is a professor at the Centre for the Advancement of Scholarship, University of Pretoria, South Africa. danny.bradlow@up.ac.za

IPS UN Bureau

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');  

By CIVICUS
Sep 1 2025 (IPS)

 
CIVICUS discusses civil society’s challenges in engaging with United Nations (UN) processes with an activist from a Salvadoran queer-led organisation who asked to remain anonymous for security reasons.

The UN recently held its annual High-Level Political Forum (HLPF) to review progress on the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). El Salvador proclaimed the country’s ‘comprehensive transformation’ under President Nayib Bukele’s increasingly autocratic rule. But the Bukele government is attacking civic space, and its domestic repression extends internationally, with civil society facing serious barriers and potential reprisals when engaging with UN processes.

What challenges did you face participating in the 2025 HLPF?

Our participation was made extremely difficult. It was only thanks to the support of international allies that we were able to prepare a civil society response to the state’s Voluntary National Review and attend the forum. Once there, the barriers to reading the civil society statement were significant. We made numerous behind-the-scenes efforts before the Women’s Major Group generously offered to read our statement on our behalf.

Being the only Salvadoran civil society representative in the room, I was forced to give up my speaking space and rely on the solidarity of others. Despite feeling deep companionship and mutual care among civil society, it remained a profoundly painful experience. Not being able to read a statement that had been built collectively and carefully through anonymous consultations felt like erasure: of our presence, our voices and our right to speak truth in global spaces.

Potential reprisals were another major concern. During the HLPF, we closely monitored the situation back home, as just months prior, El Salvador had taken further steps towards full authoritarianism. The arrest of Ruth López, a high-profile human rights lawyer, caused widespread concern. Most Salvadoran organisations dropped out of the UN process afterwards, leaving our organisation as the only one present in New York.

Even after Ruth’s arrest caused international outrage, human rights defenders continued to be targeted. The government wasn’t deterred by the possibility of international scrutiny. Further, the cases of Kilmar Armando Ábrego García, deported from the USA by the Trump administration and imprisoned in a maximum-security detention centre, and Venezuelan detainees who experienced torture under custody in El Salvador, illustrate that threats of arrest, torture and death are real risks.

Is this problem widespread beyond El Salvador?

These attacks are not unique to El Salvador: civil society leaders from countries including Guatemala and Nigeria also faced threats during the HLPF. One organisation’s office was raided during the forum. This confirms that the UN remains one of the few spaces where civil society can speak truth to power, which is why repressive governments are willing to go to great lengths to suppress their voices.

However, even if not everybody faces the same level of repression, there was a shared sense that the space for civil society engagement at the UN is also narrowing. This has serious implications. When fear of retaliation shapes who speaks and how, the credibility of the UN as a platform for civil society suffers. It fundamentally changes who is able and willing to speak out. Who will take the mic at the UN when doing so might cost them their freedom?

What needs to change?

The UN needs stronger protection mechanisms for human rights defenders who engage in these spaces. When we reached out to UN officials in Geneva and New York, their support was unfortunately limited. It was civil society, not official UN mechanisms, that stepped in to activate protection networks, establish contacts and contribute to tracking possible reprisals.

The narrowing space for civil society engagement at the UN must be addressed. This has become particularly visible in the planning process for the UN80 initiative – an efficiency drive to mark the UN’s 80th anniversary – which, instead of being a moment of celebration, is increasingly seen as a push for further exclusion.

I deeply hope CIVICUS and other allied networks will continue to push for stronger protection mechanisms and public responses when defenders are under attack for daring to engage in these spaces.

El Salvador is currently on the CIVICUS Monitor Watchlist, which tracks countries experiencing a serious decline in respect for civic freedoms.

SEE ALSO
SDGs: accountability under threat CIVICUS Lens 11.Aug.2025
Defending the defenders: civil society’s struggle for global space and voice CIVICUS Lens 28.Jul.2025
Key highlights: CIVICUS at 59th Session of the UN Human Rights Council CIVICUS 23.Jul.2025

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');  

The Leader of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), Yasser Arafat, arrived at UN Headquarters by helicopter. A view of the helicopter as it approached the North Lawn of the UN campus on 13 November 1974. But Arafat was denied a US visa for a second visit to the UN in 1988. Credit: UN Photo/Michos Tzovaras

By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Sep 1 2025 (IPS)

When Yasser Arafat, leader of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) was denied a US visa to visit New York to address the United Nations back in 1988– under the Ronald Reagan administration– the General Assembly defied the United States by temporarily moving the UN’s highest policy making body to Geneva– for the first time in UN history– providing a less-hostile political environment for the PLO leader.

Arafat, who first addressed the UN in 1974, took a swipe at Washington when he prefaced his statement in Geneva by pointing out that “it never occurred to me that my second meeting with this honorable Assembly, would take place in the hospitable city of Geneva”.

And now, 37 years later, there is a campaign to once again temporarily move the General Assembly sessions to Geneva to provide a platform for Palestinian delegates who are being denied visas to enter the US.

Sarah Leah Whitson, executive director DAWN, a nonprofit organization that seeks to reform U.S. policy in the Middle East, told IPS: “It’s clear that the US is trying to deter any discussion about the genocide in Gaza and Palestinian statehood by revoking the visas of Palestinian officials”.

But it’s also pretty clear, “that the world is fed up with the savage Israeli atrocities we are witnessing every day, so we very much hope they will act promptly to move the General Assembly meeting to Geneva just as they did the last time the US pulled such a stunt,” said Whitson, a former director of the Middle East and North Africa division of Human Rights Watch.

Moving the meeting to Geneva, she argued, will send a message to the Trump administration that the international community does not tolerate these breaches of long-standing law requiring access to all UN representatives.

In a statement released last week, DAWN said the 1947 US-UN Headquarters Agreement requires the United States to provide unfettered access to UN proceedings for all representatives, regardless of bilateral disputes.

Section 11 establishes an “unrestricted right” for officials to enter the U.S. for UN business, while Section 12 states these provisions apply “irrespective of the relations existing between the Governments” and the U.S.

This is not the first time the United States has violated its obligations under the UN Headquarters Agreement. In 1988, the U.S. denied a visa to PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat to attend the UN General Assembly session, DAWN said.

The UN responded by adopting a resolution concluding that Washington had violated its obligations under the 1947 Agreement and, as a rebuke, moved its General Assembly meeting from New York to Geneva to allow the Palestinian leader to speak.

Asked for his comments, Martin S. Edwards, Associate Dean for Academic and Student Affairs, School of Diplomacy and International Relations, at Seton Hall University, told IPS: “In a very real sense, the call to move the meeting is to be expected.”

The Trump administration delights in pursuing policies without regard to the opinions of other countries, so it’s no accident that America First is becoming America Alone, he said.

If countries who have proposed Palestinian recognition follow through, the US will be the only P-5 country on the Security Council yet to do so.

The recent countries that have proposed Palestinian recognition are doing so to shape the Israeli conduct of the Gaza War.

“It makes every bit of sense to use the threat of moving the meeting to Geneva in the very same way. And this points to a second lesson that this White House has yet to learn: when you push on the rest of the world, it can and will push back”, declared Edwards.

Andreas Bummel, executive director, Democracy Without Borders told IPS: the host agreement is clear. It is not up to the host country to decide who may or may not enter the halls of the United Nations.

As a permanent observer state, Palestine has every right to send representatives. If the General Assembly or other UN bodies find they are hindered from functioning properly in New York, it would be reasonable for them to consider convening elsewhere, said Bummel.

Asked about the denial of visas, UN Spokesperson Stephane Dujarric told reporters August 29: “We are going to discuss this with the State Department. I mean, the Headquarters Agreement deserves to be read – notably, I think, sections 11 and 12.”

“We obviously hope that this will be resolved. It is important that all Member States, permanent observers, be able to be represented – especially, I think in this case, as we know, with the upcoming two-state solution meeting that France and Saudi Arabia will host at the beginning of the GA”

“We would like to see all diplomats and delegates who are entitled to come here to be able to travel freely”, he said.

Meanwhile, a State Department Press Release, August 29, says “in accordance with U.S. law, Secretary of State Marco Rubio is denying and revoking visas from members of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and the Palestinian Authority (PA) ahead of the upcoming United Nations General Assembly.”

“The Trump Administration has been clear: it is in our national security interests to hold the PLO and PA accountable for not complying with their commitments, and for undermining the prospects for peace.”

“Before the PLO and PA can be considered partners for peace, they must consistently repudiate terrorism — including the October 7 massacre — and end incitement to terrorism in education, as required by U.S. law and as promised by the PLO.

The PA must also end its attempts to bypass negotiations through international lawfare campaigns, including appeals to the ICC and ICJ, and efforts to secure the unilateral recognition of a conjectural Palestinian state. Both steps materially contributed to Hamas’s refusal to release its hostages, and to the breakdown of the Gaza ceasefire talks.”

The PA Mission to the UN will receive waivers per the UN Headquarters Agreement, the State Department said. The United States remains open to re-engagement that is consistent with our laws, should the PA/PLO meet their obligations and demonstrably take concrete steps to return to a constructive path of compromise and peaceful coexistence with the State of Israel.

So far, the State of Palestine has been recognized as a sovereign nation state by 147 of the 193 member states, or just over 76% of all UN members. It has been “a non-member observer state” of the UN General Assembly since November 2012.

Meanwhile Western countries, who are US allies – including UK, France, Australia and Canada– have announced plans to recognize Palestine as a sovereign nation state during the General Assembly sessions in mid-September.

Palestine, which was never afforded the status of a full-fledged UN member state pulled off a coup when the 134-member Group of 77, the largest single economic coalition at the UN, elected Palestine as its chairman, back in 2018, much against US protests.

Speaking on condition of anonymity, a former UN assistant secretary-general (ASG) told IPS since the US does not have a veto power in the General Assembly (GA) –unlike the Security Council—a GA resolution could be effortlessly adopted – perhaps a resolution sponsored by the 57-member Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC).

IPS UN Bureau Report

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');  

Carolyne Odour's two young sons went missing with their father - a follower of self-proclaimed pastor Paul Mackenzie.

Actress Nandi Nyembe's final months were marked by money problems that threatened to overshadow her career.

Monitoring Iran and promoting the peaceful use of nuclear energy. Credit: IAEA
 
The IAEA applies safeguards to verify states are honouring their international legal obligations to use nuclear material for peaceful purposes only.

By Kelsey Davenport
WASHINGTON DC, Aug 29 2025 (IPS)

The decision early this week by the E3 (France, Germany, and the United Kingdom) to initiate the process to snap back UN sanctions on Iran that were modified as part of the 2015 nuclear deal must be paired with an effective diplomatic strategy that restarts talks between the United States and Iran.

If the E3 and the United States fail to prioritize pragmatic diplomacy in the coming weeks and provide assurance that there will be no further military attacks while bilateral talks proceed, they risk pushing Tehran closer to nuclear weapons and putting the region back on a path to war.

Under the so-called snapback process outlined in Resolution 2231, which endorsed the 2015 nuclear deal, the Security Council now has 30 days to pass a resolution continuing the UN sanctions relief.

If such a resolution does not pass, there will be an automatic reimposition of the UN sanctions and nuclear restrictions—including a prohibition on uranium enrichment—contained in resolutions passed by the Security Council between 2006 and 2010 as part of the global pressure campaign that contributed to the negotiation of the 2015 nuclear deal, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.

Iran has threatened to respond to the snapping back of UN measures, including by withdrawing from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT)—a step that would put the United States and Iran back on a path to conflict.

To avert this crisis, the Trump administration must take advantage of the 30-day window before snapback is finalized to reach an interim agreement with Iran that stabilizes the current crisis and extends the option to snapback UN sanctions.

Such an arrangement would reduce the risk of further conflict and create the time and space for the complex negotiations that will be necessary to negotiate a comprehensive nuclear deal.

In any interim agreement, the Trump administration must prioritize the return of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors to Iran. IAEA Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi’s announcement that inspectors returned to Iran and Tehran’s decision to allow inspectors access to the Bushehr site is a positive step, but it is imperative that Iran meets its legal obligations by allowing the full resumption of IAEA safeguards inspections at all sites and cooperating with IAEA efforts to account for Iran’s stockpiles of nuclear materials, particularly the uranium enriched to 60 percent.

An interim deal should also take into account Iran’s legitimate concerns about further illegal attacks on its nuclear facilities and scientists by solidifying the ceasefire that ended the 12-day war between Israel, Iran, and the United States and recognizing Iran’s NPT right to a peaceful nuclear program under IAEA safeguards.

An agreement along these lines would be insufficient to resolve the Iranian nuclear crisis, but it would be a positive step that de-escalates tensions and creates time for further diplomacy to reduce Iran’s proliferation risk in the long term.

Failure to use the 30-day window to reach an agreement that staves off snapback risks putting the United States, Israel, and Iran back on the path to conflict and could drive Tehran to follow through on its threat to withdraw from the NPT, a step that increases the risk of a nuclear-armed Iran and weakens the treaty.

Despite President Donald Trump’s claims that the U.S. and Israeli military strikes set Iran’s program back by years, military action is incapable of addressing Iran’s proliferation threat. Iran’s nuclear knowledge cannot be bombed away, and Tehran still possesses nuclear capabilities and material that pose an urgent proliferation threat.

And now some of those materials, including Iran’s stockpile of uranium enriched to near-weapons grade levels, remain accounted for and unmonitored. It is highly likely that Iran retains the capabilities and materials to quickly return to the threshold of nuclear weapons or weaponize if the decision were made to do so.

If Trump fails to seize this moment, he risks dragging the United States back into a military conflict with Iran, weakening the NPT, and driving Tehran closer to the bomb. It is in neither the interest of Tehran nor Washington to miss this window of opportunity to pursue a lasting diplomatic solution that verifiably blocks Iran’s pathways to nuclear weapons and provides Iran with benefits in return.

The Arms Control Association is an independent, nongovernmental, nonpartisan membership organization dedicated to the providing authoritative information and practical solutions to eliminate the threats posed by the world’s most dangerous weapons.

Kelsey Davenport is the Director for Nonproliferation Policy, and is a leading expert on nuclear and missile programs in Iran and North Korea and on international efforts to prevent proliferation and nuclear terrorism.

IPS UN Bureau

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');  

The United Nations Staff Union is the labor union representing New York Secretariat Staff, Locally Recruited Staff in the field, and Staff Members of UN Information Centers. Credit: United Nations

By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Aug 29 2025 (IPS)

The 193-member General Assembly, the UN’s highest policy-making body, will make the ultimate decision on the proposed UN restructuring, which will include staff cutbacks, merging or eliminating of departments and relocating UN agencies from high-cost to low-cost locations.

Perhaps one of the biggest single fears is that thousands of UN staffers, who are neither permanent residents nor US citizens, along with their families, will have to return to their home countries after living here for years– or for decades– because they lose their UN visa status.

UN spokesperson Stephane Dujarric told reporters on August 25 the Secretary-General will present a revised budget to the Fifth Committee in the coming weeks.

But he described the proposed cutbacks as “some painful staff reductions”.

Those that have been proposed, and will be proposed, to the General Assembly, and it will be Member States who will have to take those decisions, he pointed out.

Stephanie Hodge, a former staffer at UNDP (1994-1996 & 1999- 2004) and UNICEF (2008-2014), told IPS UN “reform” seems to mean chopping 20 percent across the board, as if leadership could be measured with a lawnmower.

“What really happens, of course, is that the bullies, sycophants, and kick-up, kiss-down survivors cling to their posts, while the technical staff — the ones who actually deliver — are the first out the door”.

The humiliation for staff is real, she pointed out.

Many spend months walking past the same UN offices where they once worked, waiting for a promised callback that never comes. And now, thousands in New York who aren’t U.S. citizens or permanent residents face an even harsher fate: pink slips, deportation papers, and decades of service dismissed in the name of “efficiency,” said Hodge.

“The irony is brutal: an institution founded to protect rights is now poised to trample on the rights of its own. Families uprooted, livelihoods erased, duty of care abandoned. This isn’t reform — it’s institutional hypocrisy, and it hollows out the very values the UN claims to stand for,” she argued.

The UN preaches “leave no one behind.” Apparently, that excludes its own, declared Hodge, an international evaluator and former UN advisor who has worked across 140 countries, and who writes on governance, multilateral reform, and climate equity.

A former UN staffer told IPS: “I know it would be almost inhumane to abruptly disrupt peoples’ lives midway in their careers and their children’s education, unless adequate compensation is provided to those affected. Well, we still don’t know what the UN is planning to do”.

Meanwhile, a new report from the World Health Organization says it anticipates losing 600 staff members at its headquarters in Geneva due to reductions in its budget for 2026-2027, WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus wrote in a letter sent to staff, according to the media platform Devex.

“With a 21% reduction in the 2026–2027 budget, we are now realigning our structures with our core mandate,” Tedros wrote, outlining WHO’s ongoing restructuring in response to donor funding cuts.

“Some activities are being sunset, others are being scaled down, and those most directly linked to our mission are being maintained. At headquarters, based on the final approved structures, we anticipate approximately 600 separations,” he said.

Asked for her comments, Dr Purnima Mane, ex- President and CEO of Pathfinder International, and former Deputy Executive Director (Programme) and UN Assistant-Secretary-General (ASG) at the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), told IPS UN reform has generally been seen as a welcome process to streamline its functioning and achieve its objectives more efficiently.

However, she pointed out, recognizing that UN reform needs to be aimed at serving the organization to meet its goals and achieve what is good for all its beneficiaries including its staff, the reform process becomes open to question when it occurs against the background of mainly financial constraints.

“Proposed organizational restructuring which is driven largely by the likelihood of reduced funding, runs the risk of sacrificing human considerations and those of impact on the broader goals of the UN”.

While the ultimate decision on the proposed restructuring lies with the General Assembly, she said, what we know so far, is that the proposed restructuring will include staff cutbacks
merging or elimination of some departments and relocation of agencies from high-cost to low-cost destinations.

Through its discussions, it has become apparent that the UN is considering the likelihood of early separation programs (voluntary separation by mutual agreement) which may appeal to some especially those close to retirement.

But the more drastic option is the merging or elimination of some departments (and perhaps even agencies) and potential relocation of agencies.

The last two options will pose major logistical challenges but in considering this decision, attention also needs to be paid to the problems which staff will face as a result.

Staff located in the US for example, who are neither citizens nor permanent residents and their families will find these changes difficult to navigate.

Not only would it interfere with the lives of the families of UN staff – some of whom have been located for years in the US – but it would also deny them major benefits in the years to come, including those most essential like health insurance and retirement packages which may often be insensitive to the increase in the cost of living in those countries over time, she said.

“Finding alternative employment with their immigration status will be even more difficult for the ex-employees especially in a generally tough job market. While severely handicapping the welfare of the staff and their families, these steps would also deprive the agency/ies of the skill sets which enable the UN to perform judiciously and expeditiously and meet its ultimate aims – all this at the cost potentially of the gains made and those to come.”

While the cutbacks are undoubtedly painful for the UN as a whole, they are the most painful directly to the staff and their families. However, often there is a sense that UN employees are “privileged” both financially and in other ways.

Against this background, some might not see employee welfare as even a minor consideration. Hopefully the members of the General Assembly will weigh the options carefully, bearing in mind both the human cost and the impact of these cutbacks on what the UN aims to achieve, she cautioned

“Getting the UN to focus on major structural changes and reduction of staff at the cost of staff morale particularly at a time when a uniting, well-functioning body is most needed by a volatile world could severely jeopardize what the UN has so far achieved and of course endanger what it aims to offer us in the years to come,” declared Dr Mane.

IPS UN Bureau Report

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');  

A nongovernmental organization is trying to reforest areas once deforested due to displacement in the DRC. Credit: Prosper Heri Ngorora/IPS

By Prosper Heri Ngorora
GOMA, Democratic Republic of Congo, Aug 29 2025 (IPS)

The Youth Circle for Nature Conservation and Community Development is working toward the reforestation of sites where displaced people lived near the town of Goma.

The platform wants to reforest all the sites deforested by war-displaced people around the town of Goma.

Most of these areas were wooded before the M23 war began in late 2021.

When the wave of displaced people began to sweep through the capital of North Kivu, these areas were cleared for a variety of purposes, including the construction of makeshift shelters and the use of firewood.

“We see reforestation as a practical way of combating global warming and soil degradation and restoring biodiversity,” says Gloire Mbusa, programme manager at Youth Circle for Nature Conservation and Community Development.

He says that his organization has already planted trees on more than 13 hectares at the Kanyaruchinya site, north of the city of Goma.

Many environmentalists have criticized the current political and security crisis in eastern DRC for its “disastrous consequences” for the environment and called for action to fix it.

Virunga National Park is a UNESCO World Heritage Site. Credit
Yvette Kaboza/Wikipedia

“We deplore the fact that since the outbreak of the current crisis in the east of the country, protected areas, including parks, have been destroyed. The parties involved in the conflict should know that these areas have non-belligerent status,” says Olivier Ndoole Bahemuke, an environmental activist.

He refers in particular to the Virunga National Park, one of the oldest parks in Africa, which is facing what he describes as an ‘existential threat.’

The Institut Congolais pour la Conservation de la Nature, the Congolese state body responsible for managing and conserving biodiversity in the DRC, has revealed that weapon activism, despoiling and carbonization are among the threats to the Virunga Park.

Congo-Youth Circle for Nature Conservation and Community Development says it wants to help revive an already ‘fragile’ biodiversity by planting trees.

“We are considering reforesting other sites, such as the concessions of the primary and secondary schools that used to house displaced people,” says Gloire Mbusa.

John Tsongo, an environmental activist in Goma, encourages such initiatives, which he believes will green up the outskirts of the capital of North Kivu.

“There were more than 10 camps for displaced people around Goma, and these camps were no longer covered in vegetation. To say that we are starting to replant trees again is a truly commendable initiative. It will play a very important role in regulating the province’s climate. This initiative needs to be carried out right in the heart of the city of Goma,” he says.

He suggests that the authorities and other stakeholders raise awareness among the population so that everyone plants at least one tree in Goma, which could go some way to solving the problem of restoring green spaces in and around Goma.

“We can, for example, tell the population to plant trees along the main roads in the city of Goma and in each plot. Thereafter, we can tell the residents to monitor the trees to ensure that they last. There have been many projects along these lines, but to no avail,” he warns.

The Democratic Republic of Congo is one of the world’s forest-rich countries. Deforestation on both a small and large scale is putting its forests at risk, jeopardizing the merits of the country as a ‘solution country’ to climate change, as its authorities have always claimed.

IPS UN Bureau Report

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById({js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');   Related Articles

• Should King Baudouin, DRC’s Last Sovereign, Be Beatified?
• Soaring Demand for Electric Vehicles, Lithium-Ion Batteries Creates Environmental Crisis in DRC
• African Leaders Challenged To Unite Against Energy Transition Mineral Oppressors

Chrystal Tabobandung, Founder of RAISE Indigenous cultural awareness.

By Minoru Harada
TOKYO, Aug 28 2025 (IPS)

Minoru Harada, president of the Soka Gakkai Buddhist organization, has today issued a statement marking 80 years since the end of World War II, titled “Creating a Wave of Change Toward a Century Without War,” clarifying its ongoing commitment to peace.

Harada’s statement is grounded in the determination that no one on this planet should have to endure the horrors of war. Sharing his own wartime experiences of the terror of the firebombing of Tokyo, Harada expresses condolences for those killed in war and regret for the suffering caused by the Japanese military during World War II.

He writes: “As a Japanese citizen, I once again firmly pledge to continue working to build peace not only in the Asia-Pacific region, where Japan’s past actions caused immense devastation and suffering, but also throughout the world, guided by deep reflection on this history.”

Harada stresses that concern for the suffering of innocent civilians underpins the Soka Gakkai’s commitment to peace. The same concern motivated the manifold efforts to build peace and renounce war initiated by his mentor SGI President Daisaku Ikeda (1928–2023)—from his visits to countries in Asia devastated by Japanese brutality to his efforts to rid the world of nuclear weapons, and his contribution of annual peace proposals over a 40-year period.

Harada expresses grave concern about the ongoing conflicts and calamitous situations in Ukraine and Gaza and calls for persistent diplomatic efforts to achieve genuine ceasefires. He laments that the 80-year-old goal of the Charter of the United Nations—freeing the world from the scourge of war—has not yet been achieved and urges adherence to international humanitarian law. He also proposes galvanizing public opinion toward the prohibition and abolition of nuclear weapons.

Harada concludes by outlining three key commitments by the Soka Gakkai:

Firstly, ongoing youth exchanges, in line with the organization’s long track record of promoting grassroots exchanges with neighboring countries in Asia, including China and South Korea. He writes: “We firmly believe that friendships forged by the youth of the next generation will serve as the most powerful foundation for a bulwark against war.”

Secondly, Harada confirms the commitment to continued engagement in interfaith dialogue of the Soka Gakkai and the SGI (Soka Gakkai International).

And thirdly, he urges the expansion of global solidarity and commits to ongoing support for UN-centered efforts to address issues such as human rights and climate change.

He states: “Now, more than ever, the international community must transition from an era characterized by increasing mutual mistrust leading to military buildup to one in which nations work together to tackle common threats and challenges facing humanity. By steadily advancing such efforts, the path toward a century defined by the renunciation of war will inevitably come into clear view.”

The Soka Gakkai is a global community-based Buddhist organization that promotes peace, culture and education centered on respect for the dignity of life. Its members study and put into practice the humanistic philosophy of Nichiren Buddhism. Minoru Harada has been Soka Gakkai president since 2006.

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');  

Excerpt:

Minoru Harada, Soka Gakkai President

United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres at a press briefing on Israel’s plans to take over Gaza City. Credit: Jennifer Xin-Tsu Lin Levine/IPS

By Jennifer Xin-Tsu Lin Levine
UNITED NATIONS, Aug 28 2025 (IPS)

Ahead of the Security Council meeting on the situation in the Middle East, United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres spoke to the press on the “unfolding tragedy that is Gaza,” calling Israel’s new plans to take over Gaza City with the military a “deadly escalation” and an “existential threat to the two-state solution.”

He warned that such a move could precipitate an unprecedented humanitarian catastrophe that imperiled any remaining prospects for negotiated peace.

The Secretary-General also reiterated his plea for an immediate ceasefire, emphasizing that capturing Gaza City would result in massive civilian casualties and widespread destruction—including severe impacts on the health sector already teetering on collapse.

At the daily press briefing, spokesperson for the Secretary-General Stéphane Dujarric reported on the displacement in Gaza since Israel’s most recent invasion, confirming the Secretary-General’s statements about refugees. UN experts report that the total number of people who have fled from north Gaza to south Gaza since August 14, when the Israeli invasion was announced, is 20,000.

The Secretary-General went on to address the most recent Israeli air strike on the Nasser Hospital in the southern Strip of Gaza, where at least 20 people were killed and 50 others were injured. Israel’s military defended the strike by asserting that it targeted a camera used by Hamas to surveil troop movements.

Dorothy Shea, United States ambassador to the United Nations, defended Israeli actions and urged condemnation of Hamas’ use of civilian facilities for military purposes. She also noted the Hamas members killed by the airstrike.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu issued a statement calling the strike a “tragic mishap” with no mention of a specific Hamas target. The Secretary-General called for an impartial investigation into these contrasting claims.

Although Netanyahu reaffirmed his respect for journalists on X, formerly known as Twitter, UNESCO reported at least 62 journalists and media workers killed in Palestine while working since October 2023. At least five journalists were killed in the Nasser air strike, according to World Health Organization Director Tedros Adhanom Gebreyesus.

At the Security Council meeting debating whether or not to renew the mandate for the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL), many representatives acknowledged Israel’s current military action and called UNIFIL’s work “vital” in maintaining borders, minimizing conflict and stabilizing tensions.

The representative for Algeria Amar Bendjama was critical of UNIFIL’s failures, but spoke in favor of the renewal. He said, “We must ask, has UNIFIL fulfilled its mandate? Clearly, the answer is no. Lebanese lines remain under Israeli occupation, and we regret that our proposal to include a clear reference to the 1949 general armistice agreement was not retained. Without ending Israel’s occupation of Arab lands, peace and stability in the region will remain elusive.”

UNIFIL was initially created in 1978 to oversee Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon. The mandate was adjusted and has played a significant role in maintaining Lebanese army control on the border between Lebanon and Israel rather than Hezbollah, a paramilitary organization, taking over. Critics, led by the United States, see the mandate as a waste of money that has helped Hezbollah consolidate power.

Dujarrac emphasized the necessity of all participating parties to respect UNIFIL’s mandate for it to successfully fulfill its promises.

The Council ultimately voted to renew UNIFIL’s mandate, with many members stressing that the mission continues to play an important role in preventing further escalation along the Israel-Lebanon border.

Guterres’s warnings on Gaza and the debate over UNIFIL underscored the overlapping crises in the region that face the Security Council.

As displacement in Gaza mounts and humanitarian needs continue to fester, UNIFIL’s renewal has bought time rather than answers for a region caught between humanitarian crisis and unresolved conflict.

IPS UN Bureau Report

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById({js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');  

Excerpt:

As Israel escalates its attack on Gaza City, the UN moves to stop further violence and humanitarian violations by renewing UNIFIL’s mandate for the last time.

Ghana has been described as the fashion industry’s dumping ground.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IPS UN Bureau Report

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById({js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');   Related Articles

• Afghan Women Defy Taliban Repression With Underground Protests
• Malala: ‘Honest Conversations on Girls’ Education Start by Exposing the Worst Violations’

Credit: Corte IDH/Twitter

By Inés M. Pousadela
MONTEVIDEO, Uruguay, Aug 28 2025 (IPS)

On 7 August, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights delivered a groundbreaking decision that could transform women’s lives across the Americas. For the first time in international law, an international tribunal recognised care as an autonomous human right. Advisory Opinion 31/25, issued in response to a request from Argentina, elevates care – long invisible and relegated to the private sphere – to the level of a universal enforceable entitlement.

The court’s decision emerged from a highly participatory process that included extensive written submissions from civil society, academics, governments and international organisations, plus public hearings held in Costa Rica in March 2024. The ruling validates what feminist activists have argued for decades: care work is labour with immense social and economic value that deserves recognition and protection.

Three dimensions of care

The statistics that informed this ruling tell a stark story. In Latin America, women perform between 69 and 86 per cent of all unpaid domestic and care work, hampering their careers, education and personal development. The court recognised this imbalance as a source of structural gender inequality that needs urgent state action.

The decision defines care broadly, covering all tasks necessary for the reproduction and sustenance of life, from providing food and healthcare to offering emotional support. It establishes three interdependent dimensions: the right to provide care, the right to receive care and the right to self-care.

The court interpreted the American Convention on Human Rights as encompassing the right to care, making clear states must respect, protect and guarantee this right through laws, public policies and resources. It outlined measures states should take, including mandatory paid paternity leave equal to maternity leave, workplace flexibility for carers, recognition of care work as labour deserving social protection and comprehensive public care systems.

Feminist advocacy vindicated

The court’s decision reflects the profound influence of feminist scholarship. For decades, feminist activists have insisted that care work, overwhelmingly performed by women, is invisible and undervalued despite being central to sustaining life and economies. The court’s recognition validates these arguments, affirming that care work isn’t a natural extension of women’s roles confined in the private sphere, but labour with immense social and economic value.

The court’s intersectional approach represents another crucial victory for feminist movements. The advisory opinion acknowledged that care burdens aren’t evenly distributed among women: Indigenous, Afro-descendant, migrant and low-income women face disproportionate responsibilities and multiple layers of discrimination. This recognition aligns with feminist movements’ emphasis on the ways gender, race, class and migration status intersect to shape inequality.

Significantly, the court explicitly connected self-care with access to sexual and reproductive health services, recognising that genuine wellbeing requires the ability to make free and informed decisions about pregnancy, childbirth, motherhood and bodily autonomy. It stressed that all people – including women, transgender people and non-binary people who can become pregnant – should be free from imposed mandates of motherhood or care.

Civil society’s crucial role

This victory belongs to civil society. Feminist and human rights organisations across Latin America campaigned to bring the issue before the court and provided crucial expertise. Groups such as ELA-Equipo Latinoamericano de Justicia y Género, Dejusticia, the Global Initiative for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and Women in Informal Employment-Globalizing and Organizing submitted arguments and evidence that shaped the court’s reasoning.

Organisations documented the realities of women caring for incarcerated relatives, migrant women working care jobs in precarious conditions and communities lacking basic services such as water and sanitation that make unpaid care work even more burdensome. This helped ensure the court’s opinion reflected social realities rather than abstract principles.

The opinion’s transformative potential extends beyond gender equality. By recognising care as a universal human need, it positions it as a cornerstone of sustainable development. Investments in care infrastructure create jobs, reduce inequality and support women’s workplace participation while ensuring that children, older people and people with disabilities can live with dignity and autonomy.

The road to implementation

While advisory opinions aren’t binding, they carry considerable legal and political weight, setting regional standards that influence constitutional reforms, strategic litigation and policy development. This decision provides a blueprint for societies where care isn’t an invisible burden but a shared and supported responsibility.

However, feminist organisations have noted a crucial limitation: the court’s decision not to designate the state as the primary guarantor of care rights creates an ambiguity that risks allowing governments to offload duties onto families, perpetuating the inequalities the decision aims to address.

Civil society faces the crucial task of ensuring that implementation prioritises state responsibility. The test lies in transforming legal recognition into laws, policies and practices that reach those most in need. The struggle now shifts from the courtroom to the political arena. Feminist movements are already preparing strategic cases and launching campaigns to pressure governments to pass laws, allocate budgets and build required infrastructure.

States must pass laws recognising the right to care, design universal care systems, integrate time-use surveys into national accounts and build robust care infrastructure. Employers must adapt workplaces to recognise caregiving responsibilities. Civil society and governments must challenge gender stereotypes and engage men and boys in care work.

The Inter-American Court has shown what’s possible: societies where care is valued, supported and shared. For the millions of women across the Americas who have carried this burden in silence, the work of turning this historic recognition into lived reality begins now.

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

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

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');  

An Asian mother is taking care of her baby while cooking with traditional stove. Approximately one billion people in Asia and the Pacific still rely on traditional polluting cooking fuels that lead to poor indoor air quality. Credit: Unsplash/Quang Nguyen Vinh

By Armida Salsiah Alisjahbana
BANGKOK, Thailand, Aug 28 2025 (IPS)

The future of the global energy landscape will be shaped by Asia and the Pacific. Over the past two decades, our region has been the principal driver of global energy demand and emissions. Energy has powered prosperity, lifted millions out of poverty and transformed societies.

This progress, however, has come at a cost: widening inequalities, entrenched fossil fuel dependencies and increasing climate vulnerability – which make achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and climate objectives challenging.

The gaps we must close

What will it truly take for the region to realize the energy transition and achieve SDG 7 – clean, affordable, reliable and modern energy for all – by 2030? The new Regional Trends Report on Energy for Sustainable Development shows that universal access to electricity is within reach. Yet other dimensions of sustainable energy require urgent acceleration.

Clean cooking remains the most pressing challenge. Nearly one billion people in Asia and the Pacific still rely on traditional fuels, exposing households – especially women and children – to dangerous levels of indoor air pollution. Renewable energy is growing, although the pace still falls short of what is needed to meet rising demand and lower emissions at the scale required.

Per capita, Asia and the Pacific’s installed renewable energy capacity remains lower than in other parts of the world. At the same time, energy efficiency continues to be underutilized, leaving untapped potential to reduce consumption, lower energy costs and reduce carbon emissions.

These challenges are compounded by emerging pressures. Securing access to and sustainably developing critical raw materials is essential for advancing energy transitions, while expanded regional power grid connectivity is crucial to improving energy security and keeping electricity affordable.

Rapidly growing sectors, such as data centres, also need to shift toward low-carbon pathways. Meeting these priorities will demand strategic planning, coordinated action and a strong commitment to fairness and equity.

Emerging momentum

The Asia-Pacific region is showing encouraging signs in recent years with many emerging initiatives to draw inspiration from. Subregional initiatives, including the ASEAN Power Grid and the Nepal-India-Bangladesh trilateral power trade, are fostering cross-border electricity exchanges, improving reliability and enabling greater renewable integration.

China and India are at the forefront of renewables, while Pacific countries such as Fiji, Solomon Islands and Vanuatu have set targets for 100 per cent renewable electricity by 2030. Indonesia and the Philippines are expanding geothermal capacity. Grid-scale battery storage in Australia is helping manage renewable fluctuations and strengthen system resilience.

Industries, urban centres and the transport sector are also driving change. Countries are rapidly expanding the adoption of electric vehicles through investment and infrastructure. Japan and Singapore are improving building energy efficiency with strict standards and incentive programmes, and the Republic of Korea is deploying smart grid technologies to optimize usage.

These examples illustrate that innovation, investment and cooperation are creating the conditions for scalable energy progress across the region.

A just transition for all

The energy transition is not only a technological shift, but also a social transformation. For many such as workers in fossil fuel industries, those in energy-poor households and youths entering the job market, the transition will be a lived reality. Reskilling, education and social protection must accompany this shift, while creating decent jobs in the renewable and energy efficiency sectors.

Women are disproportionately affected by energy poverty and remain underrepresented in the energy workforce and decision-making roles. Unlocking women’s full participation in the sector is needed to accelerate innovation and inclusive growth. A just energy transition must be gender-responsive, with policies and investments designed to close gaps in access, employment and leadership.

Turning ambition into action

Three ingredients stand out:

1. Ambition in policy and planning. Countries need bold, integrated policies that align national energy plans with climate commitments, including net-zero targets. This means setting higher renewable energy ambitions, phasing down coal dependency, embedding energy efficiency into every sector, and ensuring policies are just and inclusive.
2. Scaled-up investment. Delivering SDG 7 requires mobilizing trillions in sustainable energy investment. Governments alone cannot bear this burden. De-risking mechanisms, innovative financing and public-private partnerships will be critical to unlock capital flows.
3. Regional cooperation. Regional grid integration and cross-border power trade, and shared approaches to the development of critical energy transition minerals and technology standards can create efficiencies and resilience.

The region has shown that transformative change is possible. Just twenty years ago, hundreds of millions lacked access to electricity. Today, universal access is within reach, proving that the seemingly insurmountable gaps in clean cooking, renewable deployment and efficiency can be overcome with decisive political will and bold action.

As Asia-Pacific countries gather in September at the ESCAP Committee on Energy, the message is clear: we must act with urgency, ambition and solidarity, or risk being locked in high-carbon pathways. The decisions made in the coming years will define the region’s energy future well beyond 2030.

IPS UN Bureau

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');  

Excerpt:

Armida Salsiah Alisjahbana is United Nations Under-Secretary-General and Executive Secretary of ESCAP

Gun-wielding drivers, extortion and breakdowns, as couple flee new front line in Sudan's conflict.

The West African nation's security forces are accused of alleged rape, extortion and torture.

Malema's party argues that his remarks were taken out of context.

There has been a backlash over the recruitment scheme and a government warning to young people.