New Forms of Power-Sharing are Needed to Uphold Rights of Indigenous Peoples

Posted on by admin

Civil Society, Democracy, Featured, Global, Global Governance, Headlines, Human Rights, Indigenous Rights, IPS UN: Inside the Glasshouse, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion

KATHMANDU, Nepal, May 7 2025 (IPS) – A UN groundbreaking report published in 1982 laid the legal ground for defining the inalienable rights of Indigenous Peoples.

The document, written by José Martínez Cobo, a United Nations Special Rapporteur, analyzed the complex discrimination patterns faced by Indigenous Peoples.

If the international community is serious about protecting and safeguarding their rights, then it is indispensable to go back to one of the central questions raised in that report: the identity of indigenous people has always been intrinsically interconnected to their lands.

This tenant, now a legal concept mainstreamed in the international human rights jurisprudence, is with few exceptions, unheeded.

Disregarding and violating the rights of Indigenous Peoples to their own lands had led to disenfranchisement, alienation and countless suffering.

The relationship of Indigenous Peoples with their lands with all the measures needed to be enforced to protect it, are the foundations of United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), adopted by the General Assembly on 13 September 2007.

Upholding the Declaration’s principles and ensuring its implementation remains one of the key challenges faced by Indigenous Peoples worldwide. It was also the theme of this year’s United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, (UNPFII) the most important UN sanctioned gathering of Indigenous Peoples.

In its 24th session, hosted at the UN HQ in New York from 21 April to 2 May 2025, discussions were focused on how power sharing should underpin any quests of implementing the UNDRIP.

Because, essentially and let’s not forget it, the UNDRIP, is about recognizing Indigenous Peoples’ power. Ensuring Indigenous Peoples’ rights to their lands is paramount if we really want to ensure an inclusive form of governance that respects them.

Discussions over more inclusive forms of governance for Indigenous Peoples should yield to venues for them to have a much stronger saying over their own affairs. After many years of advocacy and legal battles, there have been some victories.

New Zealand, before the rise to power of its current conservative government, and Canada made major strides to respect and uphold the sovereign rights of their Indigenous Peoples.

There have also been strides also on other fronts, more locally.

A research presented at last year’s session of the Forum, showed some encouraging practices. For example, the Sami Parliament in Norway, the concept of Indigenous Autonomies in Mexico City and some traditions from the Tharu and Newar Peoples of Nepal, do offer some models of self-governance.

But, overall, the picture is grim.

Despite the legal framework that has been established and despite many declarations, still, the right to self-determination of Indigenous Peoples, paramount to their quest towards autonomous decision making, is contested and fought back.

And the only way to ensure its realization is when states will accept that in case of governance, whenever the rights of Indigenous Peoples are implied, it should be shared.

To be clear, this process should not be seen as a devolution of power. Rather it should be understood as a legitimate reclamation of power. The just concluded UNPFII tried to underscore this concept.

One of the conclusions of this year’s session underscored that “there has been growing recognition of the need for formal UN mechanisms that ensure Indigenous Peoples’ meaningful participation in global governance”.

The Secretary General of the United Nations, Antonio Guterres, acknowledged, in his opening remarks at the Forum, the violations and abuses faced by Indigenous Peoples.

“The difficulties facing Indigenous Peoples around the world are an affront to dignity and justice. And a source of deep sorrow for me personally”.

The daunting challenges posed by climate warming and the imperative to transition to a net zero economy are going to further challenge the compliance of the UNDRIP.

At the 24th Session, a central focus was the role of Indigenous Peoples in the context of the extraction of critical minerals that are indispensable to ensure a just transition.

On this aspect, a major study, submitted by Hindou Oumarou Ibrahim and Hannah McGlad, two members of the Forum, highlighted that there is no quest for critical minerals nor any just transition unless Indigenous Peoples are put at the front of this epochal shift.

One of the key questions is to think how governments, already pressed by geopolitical imperatives and in many cases already not compliant with the UNDRIP, can really involve, engage and consult with Indigenous Peoples.

The principle of Free, Prior, Informed Consent (FPIC) a foundational pillar of the UNDRIP, is normally only paid lip service to. But without respecting the FPIC, there won’t be a “Just Transition”.

In this regard, the worst performers in upholding this right are often multilateral and bilateral banks. Some difficult questions must be solved.

What could be done to ensure that Indigenous Peoples are at the center of the decision making whenever their lives and lands are concerned?

How to shift from a legal landscape in which the few positive exceptions become the norm? How can Indigenous Peoples better channel their grievances and come forward with their own solutions?

The UNPFII remains the only major platform that Indigenous Peoples can leverage. Yet, no matter its relevance, we are still dealing with a tool driven by symbolism that holds no binding powers.

Certainly, we cannot forget the existence of the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the Special Rapporteur on the rights of Indigenous Peoples.

If the former can offer valuable insights, the latter, as all the special procedures within the United Nations Human Rights Council, lacks teeth and enforceable powers.

One of the major requests at UNPFII, since several years, has been the appointment of a Special Representative or Advisor on Indigenous Issues to the Secretary General. Yet, even if this demand were to be fulfilled, such a new role would not lead to any substantial impact.

Even within the UNFCCC process, Indigenous issues do struggle to get attention. The recently approved Baku Work Plan could be seen just as unambitious document and the existing

The UNFCCC Local Communities and Indigenous Peoples Platform (LCIPP) is not only designed to dilute the voice of Indigenous Peoples but it is made ineffective by purpose.

More promising it is the upcoming debate to create an Indigenous Voice, the so called on Article 8(j), within the framework of the UN Convention on Biodiversity but the negotiations are going to be contentious.

The real crux is how to engage the many governments that, even now, do not recognize the unique identities of Indigenous Peoples. But here is still a lot that the United Nations system could do on its own.

This was a major point of discussion at UNPFII because UN agencies and programs must do a much better job at involving and engaging Indigenous Peoples beyond tokenism.

The probable restructuring process that the UN might be forced to undertake following the cuts in official aid by the new American Administration, should simplify its governance. But such redesign should lead to imagining new spaces that, at minimum, would enable Indigenous Peoples to have their voice heard.

The call for a “Second World Conference on Indigenous Peoples” to commemorate the twentieth anniversary of the UNDRIP in September 2027, offers an important opportunity for Indigenous Peoples.

But the advocacy work needed to hold such a historic event would only be justified if the focus in 2027 will be on measures to return the decision making to Indigenous Peoples. Essentially, any new World Conference on Indigenous Peoples should be centered on new forms of governance and power sharing.

These are the two key but inconvenient concepts that must be analyzed and discussed and ultimately internalized with the overarching goal of finally giving back Indigenous Peoples what is due.

Simone Galimberti writes about the SDGs, youth-centered policy-making and a stronger and better United Nations.

IPS UN Bureau

  Source

Shaken and Strained: Myanmar’s Earthquake Adding to the Misery of 4 Years of Conflict

Posted on by admin

Armed Conflicts, Asia-Pacific, Civil Society, Democracy, Global Governance, Headlines, Human Rights, Humanitarian Emergencies, IPS UN: Inside the Glasshouse, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion

Titon Mitra is Resident Representative, UNDP Myanmar

The 7.7 magnitude earthquake, which struck central Myanmar, has created an even deeper crisis for a country and a people who were already suffering from conflict and displacement. Credit: UNDP Myanmar/Su Sandi Htein Win

NAYPYIDAW, Myanmar, Apr 21 2025 (IPS) – As I walked through the streets of Sagaing and Mandalay, the scenes unfolding in the wake of the 7.7 earthquake were hard to comprehend.

Tall buildings and hundreds of homes are now lying in rubble. Of those that are still standing, many are lurching at dangerous angles, defying gravity for now, but could collapse at any moment.

In Sagaing, 80 percent of buildings have been destroyed and entire sections of one of the main bridges over the Irrawaddy River have snapped off and sunk into the water, like a child’s broken toy. Roads have deep fissures that could swallow cars.

Everywhere you look, families are living on the streets in temperatures that can reach 40°C. Even if their homes are still standing, they are fearful to enter them.

Disease always follows disaster, and in Sagaing and Mandalay, many people are forced to defecate in open spaces and clean water is scarce. Reports of cholera, hepatitis, and typhoid are surfacing, even among aid workers.

Hospitals, already understaffed due to ongoing civil unrest, are overwhelmed and urgently need critical medical supplies like trauma kits and antiseptics. Buildings are unsafe and patients are now housed in carparks.

Local markets are mostly closed and transport links relying on useable roads and bridges are severely affected. If there is food available, it’s extremely expensive, and jobs and incomes have been disrupted so many people can’t even buy food.

The human toll is heart breaking and will likely get worse. One week on, the focus is now grimly shifting from rescue to recovery, as the chances of finding survivors fast dwindles. It’s expected that the death toll, now at around 3,000, will increase significantly.

This is an absolutely devastating and ever deeper crisis for a country and a people who were already suffering from conflict and displacement. Myanmar’s devastated economy, still reeling from the shocks of COVID-19, last year’s typhoons, and years of conflict, has produced hyperinflation, high unemployment, and crushing levels of poverty, particularly amongst children.

The poor and vulnerable simply have no further to fall.

A UNDP report has found that 75 percent of the population or over 40 million people are living near to, or well below, subsistence levels. Myanmar’s middle class has shrunk by an astounding 50 percent in recent years. Even life’s basics are unattainable luxuries for most.

And more than 1.3 million people are internally displaced in Sagaing alone, fleeing the conflict, with little to sustain them, and never entirely safe in their refuge.

In Sagaing, 80 percent of buildings have been destroyed, including one of the main bridges across the Irrawaddy River. Credit: UNDP Myanmar/Su Sandi Htein Win

The sheer scale of the disaster, compounding the pre-existing deep vulnerability, requires a massive and sustained international response.

As in all emergencies, over the first few weeks or month, urgent needs in health, water and sanitation, food, and shelter must be met. But this is a crisis where many of those affected are in urban areas or where farming was taking place, even if at a very basic level.

Areas where it is important to quickly transition from emergency relief to economic and social service support and reconstruction. So, provision of medicines and medical supplies should be quickly followed by making hospitals and health clinics functional.

Distributing water must quickly shift to rehabilitating water supply infrastructure. General food distributions need to transition to targeted supplementary feeding and creation of jobs, incomes, and functioning of markets.

Temporary shelter should be replaced with repair of housing. Most of all, dignity and agency must be preserved – a helping hand up is so much better than perpetual handouts.

UNDP’s focus is twofold—to provide for immediate essential needs while also looking to the future. Despite extensive damage to infrastructure, UNDP teams are distributing shelter materials, clean water, and solar kits to some 500,000 people.

We are providing cash for work to the poor and working with the private sector to remove debris safely and recycle what they can. We are providing equipment and expertise to workers handling hazardous materials like asbestos without proper protection.

We are providing temporary shelters, assessing damaged homes and working with local tradespeople to effect repairs.

But we are also laying the groundwork for the longer term—restarting small businesses, repairing vital public service infrastructure and training young people so that they can get jobs in the huge amount of reconstruction that will be required.

The other thing I noticed walking around Sagaing and Mandalay were the huge, gilded ancient pagodas and statues of Buddha now also in rubble. Not so long ago, they stood grand and seemingly removed from the chaos engulfing the country. They stood as symbols of detachment and compassion.

One of the key tenets of Buddhism is the understanding that life is connected to suffering (dukkha). But how much more can the people of Myanmar suffer? And how much more can those who are suffering depend on the compassion of the ordinary people and first responders who are trying their best to ease the suffering?

Just like the pagodas and statues, resilience of the people of Myanmar cannot be assumed or a given. They desperately need the help of the international community to cope with the compounding crises. The cameras that are now focused on Myanmar will soon turn away. But one hopes that Myanmar will not continue to be the neglected crisis it is.

The international community must come together and meet the resolve and courage of Myanmar and its people, and to imagine a better future. We can at least try to make sure that when disaster strikes again, its blow will not cut so deep.

The long road to recovery will require a concerted effort to rebuild infrastructure, restore livelihoods, and address the many existing needs of the vulnerable. The world’s attention, and sustained commitment, will be crucial in helping the people of Myanmar navigate this devastating chapter.

UNDP’s response to the earthquake in Myanmar, and its work in other crisis contexts, is made possible by the support of core funding partners.

Source: UN Development Programme (UNDP)

IPS UN Bureau

  Source

US Tariffs Threaten to Undermine World Trade Organization

Posted on by admin

Civil Society, Democracy, Editors’ Choice, Featured, Global, Global Governance, Headlines, Human Rights, IPS UN: Inside the Glasshouse, TerraViva United Nations

Credit: John Birch Society

UNITED NATIONS, Apr 11 2025 (IPS) – As the Trump administration’s hostility towards the United Nations and other international organizations keeps growing, a New York Times columnist last week proposed what he frivolously described as “something a little incendiary”.

Maybe Trump could follow up on his non-appointment of Elise Stefanik as US Ambassador to the United Nations—who has been virulently anti-UN—by withdrawing the US from the United Nations entirely.

The UN’s 39-storeyed building, the Times columnist remarked, has “amazing views of the East River”—and said, rather sarcastically, it would be a great condo conversion– as a luxury apartment complex.

A White House Executive Order last February was titled “Withdrawing the United States from, and ending funding to certain United Nations organizations, and reviewing United States support to ALL international organizations.”

President Trump, who withdrew the US from the UN Human Rights Council, the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Climate Treaty, has threatened to pull out of UNESCO and the UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) for Palestine Refugees in the Near East– and also to terminate US contracts with the World Food Programme (WFP) in Rome (which was later reversed and described as “a mistake”).

And could Trump reverse his withdrawals from UN agencies –as he did with tariffs? But that seems very unlikely.

Trump’s staggering US tariffs worldwide have not only threatened the longstanding ground rules in world trade but also undermined the Geneva-based World Trade Organization (WTO), described as the only global international organization dealing with the rules of trade between nations.

Deborah Elms, head of trade policy at the Hinrich Foundation, which is focused on trade, was quoted as saying: “I would say the WTO is toast, but what matters now is how other members respond”.

“Do they stand up for the system? Or do they also ignore key principles, provisions and practices?”

In his unpredictable on-again, off-again decision-making, Trump backed down last week on most reciprocal tariffs for a period of 90 days, citing new talks with foreign nations, explaining his reversal. But China, he said, would not be included, and he raised tariffs on its exports to 125 percent.

Perhaps after 90 days, the tariffs will be at play once again, continuing to de-stabilize world trade and the global economy.

The move leaves a universal 10 percent tariff on all other countries except Canada and Mexico, which face separate duties. But it undoes some of the original tariffs — 20 percent on the European Union, 24 percent on Japan, 46 percent on Vietnam.

China has said it will impose reciprocal tariffs on all imports from the United States, escalating a trade war between the world’s two largest economies.

Mandeep S. Tiwana, Interim Co-Secretary-General CIVICUS, a global alliance of civil society organizations (CSOs), told IPS: “We are entering a dangerous age of values-free transactional diplomacy which is leading to the breakdown of the rules based international order”.

A lot of it, he pointed out, has to do with the rise of authoritarianism and populism over the past few years which has elevated political leaders who spread disinformation and rule by personality cult rather than established norms.

“Civil society and the independent media serve as important checks on the exercise of arbitrary power in the public interest but are being attacked in unprecedented ways,” he declared.

Sadly, humanity has been here before in the period prior to the start of the first and second world wars in the twentieth century, which caused immeasurable death and destruction.

Autocratic and populist regimes, he said, are deliberately undermining international norms that seek to create peaceful, just, equal and sustainable societies.

Notably, civil society organising and citizen action offer the last line of defence against the relentless assault on cherished ideals enshrined in constitutional and international law,” said Tiwana.

Asked if the rash of tariffs would lead to a global economic recession, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres told reporters April 8: “I’ve been clarifying my position about this issue time and time again. Trade wars are extremely negative. Nobody wins with a trade war. Everybody tends to lose”.

“And I’m particularly worried with the most vulnerable developing countries, in which the impact will be more devastating. I sincerely hope that we will have no recession, because a recession will have dramatic consequences, especially for the poorest people in the world,” he warned.

Dr Jim Jennings, president of Conscience International and Executive Director of US Academics for Peace, told IPS the widespread “Hands Off” protests in the US threaten to return the country to the decades of debate over tariffs that took place during the 19th Century. The issue then, as now, was protectionism—believed to enrich the manufacturing class.

Whereas the Whigs (today’s Republicans) wanted high tariffs, the idea of free trade as a way to reach prosperity was the mantra of the Democrats, who favored the working class.

President Lincoln favored tariffs, but by 1860 admitted that arguing for a protective tariff was unwise for political reasons—few people at that time favored it. Most Americans had come to realize that high tariffs were protecting the moneyed class and simply raise taxes for everybody. Lincoln knew he was unlikely to be elected President if tariffs were the key to his campaign.

Today’s bewildering day in-day out bluffs and threats by Mr. Trump means that the market will continue to bounce around. “Wall Street likes certainty, but the only certainty we can see is that the US economy is in the hands of amateurs”.

“While the idea of comparing our globalized economy to that of 1840-60 is problematic, with the world already teetering on the verge of WW III, a Trade War is the last thing we need,” declared Dr Jennings.

Andreas Bummel, Executive Director, Democracy Without Borders, told IPS “from the standpoint of democratic checks and balances, it is concerning that the US President apparently can unleash a trade war with most of the world’s countries while the US Congress simply looks on.”

But according to an Associated Press (AP) report April 9, the State Department has rolled back an undisclosed number of sweeping funding cuts to U.N. World Food Program emergency projects in 14 impoverished countries, saying it had terminated some of the contracts for life-saving aid “by mistake”.

“There were a few programs that were cut in other countries that were not meant to be cut, that have been rolled back and put into place,” State Department spokeswoman Tammy Bruce told reporters.

Meanwhile, China has said it will retaliate by imposing reciprocal tariffs on all imports from the United States. “This practice of the U.S. is not in line with international trade rules, undermines China’s legitimate rights and interests, and is a typical unilateral bullying practice,” China’s finance ministry said in a statement.

China has also filed a lawsuit with the World Trade Organization, saying the U.S. tariffs were “a typical unilateral bullying practice that endangers the stability of the global economic and trade order.”

Dr. Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, Director-General of the WTO, said the Secretariat is closely monitoring and analysing the measures announced by the United States on April 2, 2025.

“Many members have reached out to us and we are actively engaging with them in response to their questions about the potential impact on their economies and the global trading system.”

The recent announcements, he pointed out, will have substantial implications for global trade and economic growth prospects.

“While the situation is rapidly evolving, our initial estimates suggest that these measures, coupled with those introduced since the beginning of the year, could lead to an overall contraction of around 1% in global merchandise trade volumes this year, representing a downward revision of nearly four percentage points from previous projections”

“I am deeply concerned about this decline and the potential for escalation into a tariff war with a cycle of retaliatory measures that lead to further declines in trade.”

It is important to remember that, despite these new measures, the vast majority of global trade still flows under the WTO’s Most-Favored-Nation (MFN) terms.

“Our estimates now indicate that this share currently stands at 74%, down from around 80% at the beginning of the year. WTO members must stand together to safeguard these gains.”

Trade measures of this magnitude have the potential to create significant trade diversion effects. “I call on Members to manage the resulting pressures responsibly to prevent trade tensions from proliferating,” said Dr Okonjo-Iweala.

IPS UN Bureau Report

  Source

Digital Democracy at a Crossroads. Key Takeaways from RigthsCon2025

Posted on by admin

Civil Society, Crime & Justice, Democracy, Education, Featured, Gender, Global, Global Governance, Headlines, Human Rights, Press Freedom, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion

RIO DE JANEIRO / ABUJA, Apr 7 2025 (IPS) – In an increasingly digital world, democratic practices are evolving to encompass new forms of participation. Digital democracy – the use of technology to enhance civic action, movement building and access to information – has become a crucial force in shaping local and global political landscapes.

As digital spaces become central to public discourse, civil society’s work is crucial to ensure these spaces remain accessible, open, participatory and resistant to disinformation, censorship and repression.

RightsCon 2025, recently held in Taiwan, offered an opportunity to discuss the current challenges and opportunities at the intersection of tech and human rights.

The digital democracy dilemma

Internet access has expanded among excluded communities, providing new opportunities for civic action and organising for historically excluded communities. But at the same time there’s increasing use of digital surveillance, censorship and algorithmic manipulation by governments and companies with the aim of suppressing dissent and controlling public discourse.

In 2023, the last year for which full data is available, internet penetration in low-income countries grew by three per cent, but this came alongside a record decline in global electoral integrity, with state-backed disinformation campaigns influencing elections in at least 30 countries. This means there’s an urgent need for policies that both enhance digital inclusion and safeguard civic freedoms from technological threats, particularly given that AI use is growing.

Civil society is calling for a global regulatory framework that ensures tech is beneficial for all, while facing the challenge of tech-facilitated attacks on civic freedoms. At the same time, civil society resourcing is shrinking and stigmatising narratives from authoritarian governments spread by tech are on the rise. Meanwhile – as CIVICUS’s 2025 State of Civil Society Report outlines – big-tech corporations focus on protecting their political and profit agendas. This makes spaces for convening and deliberation like RightsCon more vital than ever.

What next?

A global framework is crucial to ensure technology serves the public good and contributes to a more inclusive and equitable society. As digital technologies become deeply embedded in every aspect of governance and civic space, as well as cultural and belief systems, the risks of fragmented digital policies and regulations grow, leading to inconsistent mechanisms for protection and unequal access across regions. This fragmentation can significantly increase exposure to disinformation, exploitation and surveillance, particularly for traditionally excluded and vulnerable groups.

The Global Digital Compact (GDC) agreed at last year’s UN Summit of the Future represents the kind of comprehensive, multilateral framework civil society should advocate for. By fostering global cooperation, the GDC aims to establish shared principles for digital governance that prioritise human rights, democratic values and inclusive access to digital tools.

Through international bodies and cross-sector collaborations – such as those held at RightsCon – civil society can contribute towards shaping this framework, ensuring that civil society, governments and the private sector, including tech companies, work together to create a cohesive and accountable approach to digital governance.

Challenges and opportunities

Follow-up to the GDC must address a wide range of challenges, including digital access and inclusion. The existing digital ecosystem hinders equitable participation in democratic processes and efforts to realise human rights. There’s a need to close digital divides through targeted investments in education, digital skills and infrastructure, ensuring that everyone, regardless of geography or socioeconomic status, can access the tools needed to participate fully in shaping society. Civil society’s work here must be locally led, putting communities’ needs at the heart of advocacy and focusing on curating spaces for consultation and participation.

Another critical challenge is the intersection of government digitalisation and civic engagement. E-governance and online public services offer the potential for greater transparency, efficiency and participation, but they also introduce risks for privacy and security, reinforcing longstanding structural injustices such as racism and gender discrimination. Guidelines are needed to ensure transparency and accountability in digital governance while protecting the right to privacy. Polices need to enable the use of digital tools to fight and prevent corruption and ensure governments are held accountable.

And then there are the complex issues of AI governance. As AI technologies rapidly evolve, there come growing threats of algorithmic biases, a lack of transparency and the manipulation of public discourse and information ecosystems. Robust ethical standards for AI are needed that prioritise human rights and democratic values.

From the manipulation of public opinion, efforts to distort electoral outcomes and the generation of false narratives that can incite violence and social unrest, disinformation has many negative impacts on democracy. Evidence has repeatedly shown that in countries where politicians intensively use disinformation tactics, people’s trust in public institutions and democratic processes wanes and civic participation, a critical ingredient for democratic progress, falls. Conversations during RightsCon 2025 emphasised that civil society must engage with governments and regional and global institutions to help develop policies that regulate how information is managed in the digital age while working to improve media literacy and fact-checking initiatives.

The added value of civil society lies in its ability to act as a convener, broker and watchdog, and an advocate with and for traditionally excluded voices. Civil society is key in pushing for the inclusion of strong data protection laws, digital rights protections and regulations that curb the unchecked power of tech companies, where many grey areas for accountability remain underexplored. Working alongside governments and the private sector, civil society can lead the way in developing policies that safeguard democratic values, enhance accountability and ensure technology remains a tool for positive societal change. Through collective advocacy and partnership, civil society can drive a vision of a truly inclusive and ethical digital future.

Digital democracy and the challenges it faces aren’t national issues but global ones. Disinformation, cyberattacks and the erosion of digital rights transcend borders. More grounded international solidarity and cooperation is needed to create and enforce standards that protect online civic space and rights. The GDC must be supported and made more robust as a global framework for digital governance that upholds human rights, promotes transparency and ensures accountability.

Initiatives like the Digital Democracy Initiative should be championed in recognition of the unique role society plays in monitoring, analysing and challenging threats to digital democracy. It’s never been more crucial to enable and amplify civil society action in the face of global democratic decline amid an increasingly digital age.

Carolina Vega is Innovation Quality Management Lead at CIVICUS, the global civil society alliance. Chibuzor Nwabueze is Programme and Network Coordinator for CIVICUS’s Digital Democracy Initiative.

  Source

Indian Colonialism in Sri Lanka

Posted on by admin

Asia-Pacific, Civil Society, Democracy, Editors’ Choice, Global Governance, Headlines, Human Rights, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion

The UN General Assembly adopted a resolution on “Implementation of the Declaration of the Indian Ocean as a Zone of Peace” following a report of the First Committee during the sixty-second plenary meeting of the 72nd session of the General Assembly. The resolution was adopted with a vote of 132 in favour, 3 against and 46 abstentions. 4 December 2017. Credit: United Nations

WASHINGTON DC, Mar 27 2025 (IPS) – Following independence from Britain, both India and Sri Lanka emerged as leaders of the Non-Aligned Movement, which sought to advance developing nations’ interests during the Cold War. Indeed, the term “non-alignment” was itself coined by Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru during his 1954 speech in Colombo.

The five principles of the Non-Aligned Movement are: “mutual respect for each other’s territorial integrity and sovereignty; mutual non-aggression; mutual non-interference in domestic affairs; equality and mutual benefit; and peaceful co-existence.”

Later, Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi played a key role in supporting Sri Lankan Prime Minister Sirimavo Bandaranaike’s 1971 proposal to declare the Indian Ocean a Zone of Peace at the United Nations.

Such progressive ideals are in stark contrast to the current neocolonial negotiations between the two countries.

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s forthcoming visit to Sri Lanka on April 4, 2025, is presented as representing a mutually beneficial partnership that will bring economic development to debt-burdened Sri Lanka. However, the details of the strategic agreements to be signed during Modi’s visit remain undisclosed to the public. This opacity cannot be a good sign and should not be accepted uncritically by the media or the people of either nation.

The Indo-Lanka Agreement of July 29, 1987, was also crafted without consultation with the Sri Lankan people or its parliament. It was signed during a 48-hour curfew when former Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi arrived in Sri Lanka. This agreement led to the imposition of the 13th Amendment to the Sri Lankan Constitution and established the Provincial Council system.

The political framework it created continues to challenge Sri Lanka’s territorial integrity and sovereignty. Rather than bringing peace, India’s 1987 intervention resulted in one of the most violent and chaotic periods in the island’s recent history.

Will these agreements being finalized with Prime Minister Modi also lead to a period of pillage and plunder of the island’s resources and worsening conditions for its people, rather than delivering the promised economic benefits?

It is crucial that any bilateral agreements include enforceable measures to stop Indian bottom trawlers from illegally fishing in Sri Lankan territorial waters. This decades-long practice has caused severe damage to Sri Lanka’s marine resources and inflicted significant economic losses on its fishing communities.

Facing an increasing Chinese presence in Sri Lanka and the Indian Ocean, India has sought to strengthen its political, economic, strategic and cultural influence over Sri Lanka through various overt and covert means. During Sri Lanka’s 2022 economic crisis, for example, India provided $4 billion in financial assistance through currency swaps, credit lines, and loan deferrals that enabled Sri Lanka to import essential goods from India.

While this aid has helped Sri Lanka, it has also served India’s interests by countering China’s influence and protecting Indian business in Sri Lanka.

Prime Minister Modi’s upcoming visit represents the culmination of years of Indian initiatives in Sri Lanka spanning maritime security, aviation, energy, power generation, trade, finance, and cultural exchanges. For example, India’s Unified Payment Interface (UPI) for digital payments was introduced in Sri Lanka in February 2024, and in October 2023 India provided funds to develop a digital national identity card for Sri Lanka raising concerns about India’s access to Sri Lanka’s national biometric identification data.

Indian investors have been given preferential access in the privatization of Sri Lanka’s state-owned enterprises (SOEs) in key sectors like telecommunications, financial services, and energy. The Adani Group’s West Terminal project in Colombo Port is explicitly designed to counter China’s control over Sri Lanka’s port infrastructure, including the Colombo International Container Terminal, Hambantota Port, and Port City Colombo.

India and Sri Lanka have recently agreed to resume negotiations on the Economic and Technology Cooperation Agreement (ECTA), which focuses primarily on the service sector and aims to create a unified labor market.

However, Sri Lankan professional associations have raised concerns that ECTA could give unemployed and lower-paid Indian workers a competitive advantage over their Sri Lankan counterparts. These concerns must be properly addressed before any agreement is finalized.

On December 16, 2024, India and Sri Lanka signed several Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) in New Delhi to enhance cooperation in defense, energy, and infrastructure development. These include plans for electricity grid interconnection and a multi-product petroleum pipeline between the two countries. Building on these agreements, construction of the Sampur power plant in Trincomalee is expected to begin during Prime Minister Modi’s April visit.

The Sampur power plant project, combined with India’s takeover of the Trincomalee Oil Tank Farm, represents a significant step toward integrating Sri Lanka into India’s national energy grid. This development effectively brings Trincomalee’s strategic natural harbor – often called the “crown jewel” of Sri Lanka’s assets – under Indian control, transforming it into a regional energy hub. In 1987, during India’s military intervention in Sri Lanka, New Delhi pressured Colombo into signing a secret agreement stipulating that the British-era Trincomalee oil tank farm would be jointly developed with India and could not be used by any other country.

While India promotes its energy interconnection projects as enhancing regional energy security, recent experiences in Nepal demonstrate how electricity grid integration with India has made Nepal dependent on and subordinate to India for its basic energy needs. Similarly, Bangladesh’s electricity agreement with the Adani Group has created an imbalanced situation favoring Adani over Bangladeshi power consumers. What collective actions could Sri Lanka and other small nations take to avoid such unequal “energy colonialism” and protect their national security and sovereignty?

India’s emergence as a superpower and its expansionist policies are gradually transforming neighboring South Asian and Indian Ocean states into economically and politically subordinate entities. Both Sri Lanka and the Maldives have adopted “India First” foreign policies in recent years, with the Maldives abandoning its “India Out” campaign in October 2024 in exchange for Indian economic assistance.

India’s “Neighborhood First Policy” has led to deep involvement in the internal affairs of neighboring countries including Sri Lanka. This involvement often takes the form of manipulating political parties, exploiting ethnic and religious divisions, and engineering political instability and regime changes – tactics reminiscent of colonial practices. It is well documented that India provided training to the LTTE and other terrorist groups opposing the Sri Lankan government during the civil war.

Many in Sri Lanka also suspect, though without conclusive evidence, that India’s Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) was involved in both the 2019 Easter Sunday bombings and the 2022 Aragalaya protest movement during Sri Lanka’s economic crisis.

Contemporary Indian expansionism must be viewed within the broader context of the New Cold War and intensifying geopolitical competition between the United States and China. Given its strategic location along the vital east-west shipping routes in the Indian Ocean, Sri Lanka has become a pawn in this great power rivalry.

In addition to granting China extensive control over key infrastructure, Sri Lanka has signed the Acquisition and Cross-Servicing Agreement (ACSA) and Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with the United States, effectively allowing the use of Sri Lanka as a U.S. military logistics hub.

It was reported that during a visit to Sri Lanka in February 2023, Victoria Nuland, former Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs of the United States strongly suggested the establishment of a joint US-Indian military base in Trincomalee to counter Chinese activities in the region.

As a member of the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (QUAD) – a strategic alliance against Chinese expansion that includes the United States, Australia and Japan – India participates in extensive QUAD military exercises like the Malabar exercises in the Indian Ocean.

However, India’s role in QUAD appears inconsistent with its position as a founding member of BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa), which was established to promote the interests of emerging economies and a multipolar world order.

Unfortunately, BRICS appears to be replicating the same patterns of domination and subordination in its relations with smaller nations like Sri Lanka that characterize traditional imperial powers.

India presents itself as the guardian of Buddhism, particularly in its relations with Sri Lanka, to foster a sense of shared cultural heritage. However, it was Sri Lanka – not India – that preserved the Buddha’s teachings as they declined and eventually disappeared from India. Sri Lanka maintained the Buddhist tradition despite seventeen major invasions from India aimed at destroying the island’s Buddhist civilization.

Even today, despite its extensive influence, India has not taken meaningful steps to protect Buddhist temples and archaeological sites in Sri Lanka’s north and east from attacks by Tamil separatist groups. Instead, India appears focused on advancing the concept of Akhand Bharat (Undivided India) and Hindu Rashtra (Hindu Nation), which seeks to incorporate neighboring countries like Sri Lanka into a “Greater India.” The promotion of the bogus Ramayana Trail in Sri Lanka and the accompanying Hinduization pose a serious threat to preserving Sri Lanka’s distinct Buddhist identity and heritage.

Indian neocolonialism in Sri Lanka reflects a global phenomenon where powerful nations and their local collaborators – including political, economic, academic, media and NGO elites – prioritize short-term profits and self-interest over national and collective welfare, leading to environmental destruction and cultural erosion. Breaking free from this exploitative world order requires fundamentally reimagining global economic and social systems to uphold harmony and equality.

In this global transformation, India has a significant role to play. As a nation that endured centuries of Western imperial domination, India’s historical mission should be to continue to lead the struggle for decolonization and non-alignment, rather than serving as a junior partner in superpower rivalries. Under Mahatma Gandhi’s leadership, India championed the worldwide movement for decolonization and independence in the modern era.

Upholding the principles of the Non-Aligned Movement could forge a partnership benefiting both nations while preserving Sri Lanka’s independence and Buddhist identity. Otherwise, the New Cold War will continue to trample local sovereignty, where foreign powers vie to exploit the island’s resources, subjugate local communities and accelerate environmental and cultural destruction.

Dr Asoka Bandarage has served on the faculties of Brandeis, Georgetown and Mount Holyoke and is the author of several books, including Colonialism in Sri Lanka.; The Separatist Conflict in Sri Lanka and Crisis in Sri Lanka and the World and numerous other publications on global political economy and related subjects.

IPS UN Bureau

  Source

Will UN be a Possible Target as US Goes on a Rampage?

Posted on by admin

Civil Society, Democracy, Editors’ Choice, Featured, Global, Global Governance, Headlines, Human Rights, IPS UN: Inside the Glasshouse, TerraViva United Nations

UNITED NATIONS, Mar 26 2025 (IPS) – The Trump administration, spearheaded by senior adviser Elon Musk, has been on a wild rampage: mass layoffs of government employees, gutting federal agencies, dismantling the Department of Education and USAID, defying a federal judge and threatening universities with drastic cuts in grants and contracts—decisions mostly engineered by the newly-created Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).

Perhaps with more to come.

The cuts were best symbolized with an image of Musk wielding a heavy chainsaw aimed at slashing “wasteful spending”

But the layoffs and subsequent reversals– the on-again, off-again decisions– have triggered chaos in the nation’s capital.

And political outrage is fast becoming the norm.

Musk, the tech billionaire, who acts as a virtual Prime Minister to President Trump, has called on the U.S. to exit the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the United Nations.

“I agree,” he wrote in response to a post from a right-wing political commentator, saying “it’s time” for the U.S. to leave NATO and the UN.”

The threat against the UN has been reinforced following a move by several Republican lawmakers who have submitted a bill on the U.S. exit from the U.N., claiming that the organization does not align with the Trump administration’s “America First” agenda.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/no-sane-country-would-stand-this-lawmakers-launch-effort-withdraw-u-s-from-united-nations

What’s next?

The abrogation of the 1947 US-UN Headquarters Agreement?

That 78-year-old agreement helped establish the world body in a former decrepit slaughter house in Turtle Bay New York.

The Agreement is an international treaty, and under international law, treaties are generally binding on the parties that sign them. However, the U.S. has a constitutional process for withdrawing from treaties.

In an article in the Wall Street Journal March 14, titled “The U.N. Is Ripping America Off in New York”, Eugene Kontorovich, a senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation and a professor at George Mason University School of Law, points out the U.S. offered to host the newly-created U.N. after World War II, amid a wave of optimism about the organization’s ability to prevent future wars.

John D. Rockefeller Jr. donated the land, and the headquarters was given an interstate-free loan from Washington that would be worth billions today.

The United Nations shall not be moved unless the headquarters district ceases to be used for that purpose, the agreement says. Some U.N. officials have taken this to mean the U.N. can’t be evicted.

“But the agreement is a treaty, and the default rule of international law is that treaties, unless they say otherwise, last as long as the parties wish. If the U.S. cancels the treaty, the entire arrangement disappears, nothing in the treaty’s text prohibits withdrawal. Indeed, had an irrevocable agreement been intended, (the US) Congress, which is needed to approve treaties, would not have allowed the agreement to pass without making it explicit”.

While the treaty refers to the “permanent” headquarters of the U.N., this simply means “durable.” Many international treaties use “permanent” in this way, to mean long-lasting, not eternal. The Permanent International Court of Justice lasted from 1922-46.

“Trump should reopen the 1947 agreement locating its headquarters. It was a terrible real-estate deal”, declared Kontorovich

Dr. Stephen Zunes, a Professor of Politics and International Studies at the University of San Francisco, told IPS removing the United Nations headquarters from the United States has long been advocated by the far right and generally dismissed as a fringe idea not to be taken seriously.

However, as the Trump administration has already demonstrated, even the most extreme ideologically-driven proposals can indeed end up being implemented as policy, he said.

“The United States has not always upheld its obligations under the treaty, such as in 1988 when the Reagan administration refused to allow PLO chairman Yasir Arafat to address the world body, resulting in the entire General Assembly relocating to Geneva to hear his speech”.

Removing the United Nations headquarters from the United States, he argued, “would symbolize the end of the global leadership we have had since the end of World War II when the victorious allies established the world body.”

Along with the Trump administration’s decision to disestablish the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), the Fulbright Program, and other symbols of American leadership internationally, it would end any semblance of the United States remaining a preeminent force in international cooperation.

At the same time, the United States has increasingly become an outlier when it comes to the international community rather than a leader or partner.

“This is true even under Democratic administrations, as indicated by Biden’s rogue positions in regard to Israel’s war on Gaza, Palestinian statehood, the International Court of Justice, the International Criminal Court, and other UN institutions.”

Having the UN headquarters in a more neutral location may end up being for the best, said Dr Zunes, who has written extensively on the politics of the United Nations.

So far, the US has withdrawn from the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) and the World Health Organization (WHO), while it has warned that two other UN organizations “deserve renewed scrutiny”– the UN Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA)—a warning seen as a veiled threat of US withdrawal from the two UN agencies.

Meanwhile, the United States has cut $377 million worth of funding to the UN reproductive and sexual health agency, UNFPA.

Giving an indication of UN agencies moving some of their functions out of the US, Secretary-General Antonio Guterres told reporters at a briefing last month: “We have been investing in Nairobi, creating the conditions for Nairobi to receive services that are now in more expensive locations”.

“And UNICEF will be transferring soon some of the functions to Nairobi. And UNFPA will be essentially moving to Nairobi. And I can give you many other examples of things that are being done and correspond to the idea that we must be effective and cost-effective,” he said.

Asked about the possible withdrawal of the US from the world body, Martin S. Edwards, Associate Dean for Academic and Student Affairs, School of Diplomacy and International Relations at Seton Hall University, told IPS it would not be clear what the intent of this move would be.

In fact, what is certain, he pointed out, is that it would be a mistake of gigantic proportions. The Trump administration, solely to curry favor with some small fraction of its base, would be handing a huge diplomatic victory to China, who would not hesitate to jump at the chance to host the UN.

“And even this White House has to see that, so I don’t see this as advancing US interests in any form. On the contrary, had the White House thought the UN as unimportant, they wouldn’t have designated Elise Stefanik as UN ambassador,” he declared.

A report in the Washington Examiner last January said Stefanik, the fourth-ranking Republican in the House of Representatives, and the US Ambassador-elect to the UN, has vowed to utilize her skills as a lawmaker to scrutinize the funding provided to the U.N. and cut the budget provided if necessary.

“As a member of Congress, I also understand deeply that we must be good stewards of U.S. taxpayer dollars,” Stefanik said. “The U.S. is the largest contributor to the U.N. by far. Our tax dollars should not be complicit in propping up entities that are counter to American interests, antisemitic, or engaging in fraud, corruption, or terrorism.”

As the largest single contributor, the US currently pays 22% of the United Nations’ regular budget and 27% of the peacekeeping budget. Still, the US owes $1.5 billion to the UN’s regular budget.

And, between the regular budget, the peacekeeping budget, and international tribunals, the total amount the US owes is $2.8 billion.

IPS UN Bureau Report

  Source