A Feminist Future for the UN: Why the Next Secretary-General Must Champion Civil Society

Posted on by admin

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

Opinion

Jesselina Rana is the UN Advisor at CIVICUS’s New York office. Mandeep S. Tiwana is Interim Co-Secretary General of CIVICUS, the global civil society alliance.

NEW YORK, May 5 2025 (IPS) – Climate change is threatening to engulf small island states such as Maldives and the Marshall Islands. Gender apartheid is still practiced in theocratic states such as Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. War crimes and genocide are taking place in the Occupied Palestinian Territories and Sudan.

Hunger looms large in the Congo and Yemen. People continue to be arbitrarily imprisoned in places as far apart as El-Salvador and Eritrea. Russia continues to violate Ukraine’s territorial integrity while China and the United States look the other way despite being permanent members of the UN Security Council.

Even a casual observer can concede that the UN’s mission to maintain peace and security, protect human rights and promote social progress along-with respect for international law is in crisis.

As the United Nations approaches its 80th anniversary this October, a pivotal question looms: Who should lead it into its next era? Surely, in a world impacted by multiple intersecting crises, the answer cannot be business as usual. After nearly eight decades, nine Secretary-Generals, and zero leaders from civil society—let alone a woman—the time for a transformative shift is now.

A movement is underway to demand a visionary Secretary-General who embodies feminist, principled, and courageous leadership. We need a world leader who will boldly stand up for human rights and ensure the inclusion of voices that have for too long been pushed to the margins, even as the UN faces questions about its financial sustainability.

Members of the Sub-commission on the Status of Women, from Lebanon, Poland, Denmark, Dominican Republic and India, prepare for a press conference at Hunter College in New York on 14 May 1946. Credit: UN Photo

Notably, since its inception the UN has been presided over by men, which is less than representative of the global community that the UN serves. Appointing a woman as Secretary-General would not only break this historical pattern but signal a commitment to gender equality and inspire women and girls worldwide, demonstrating that the highest levels of international leadership are accessible to all, regardless of gender. 92 states have already expressed support for a woman Secretary General.

The current Secretary General, Antonio Guterres is due to step down at end of December 2026 upon completion of his second term. The UN Charter mandates the appointment of the head of the UN by the General Assembly following the recommendation of the Security Council. Essentially, 9 out of 15 members of the Security Council must agree on the final recommendation to the General Assembly which then makes a decision on the final candidate through a majority vote.

All permanent members of the UN Security Council have the right to veto any candidate before a recommendation is made to the UN General Assembly. A lot of behind the scenes political wrangling takes place at this stage to select a candidate who will be acceptable to powerful states that seek to exert control over the UN, which is why the 1 for 8 billion campaign are demanding a process that is fair, transparent, inclusive, feminist and rigorous.

It’s no secret that the UN’s overly bureaucratic approaches and the inclination of its leadership to play safe in the face of multiple intersecting crises, including glaring violations of the UN Charter by powerful states are pushing the institution from being ineffective to becoming irrelevant.

Although many within the UN lay the blame on powerful states for co-opting the institution to assert narrow national interests and for not paying their financial dues, the problems run much deeper.

Ironically, civil society actors who work with the UN to fulfill its mission are being sidelined. In last year’s negotiations on the UN’s Pact for the Future and in current Financing for Development conversations, civil society delegates have struggled to find space to have their voices adequately included.

Many of us in civil society who have supported the UN through decades in the common quest to create more peaceful, just, equal and sustainable societies are deeply concerned about the current state of affairs.

Civil society actors have been instrumental in shaping some of the UN’s signature achievements such as the Paris Agreement on climate, the universal Sustainable Development Goals and the landmark Treaty on Enforced Disappearances. But diplomats representing repressive regimes are increasingly seeking to limit civil society participation.

These tactics are not isolated acts. They represent a coordinated, global assault on civic space and democratic norms. They are also contributory factors to the erosion of public trust in multilateral bodies which is threatening the legitimacy of the UN itself.

Tellingly, the long-standing demand for the appointment of a civil society envoy at the UN to streamline civil society participation across the UN system and to drive the UN’s outreach to civil society beyond major UN hubs has gone unheeded by the UN’s leadership.

Over the last decade and a half, civil society organisations and activists have faced a relentless assault from authoritarian-populist governments. The situation is alarming: latest findings of the CIVICUS Monitor, a participatory research collaboration, affirm that over 70% of the global population now live under repressive civic space conditions.

Across continents, activists are being illegally surveilled, arbitrarily imprisoned, and physically attacked. The right to peaceful protest is being quashed even in democracies. In far too many countries, independent civil society organisations are being dismantled and prevented from accessing funding. Just in the last two months, countries as diverse as Peru and Slovakia have introduced repressive anti-NGO laws.

As civic space closes, major financial supporters —from the US and UK to several EU states—are slashing official development assistance, thereby depriving civil society of crucial resources to resist these restrictions. A recent CIVICUS survey confirms that frontline efforts in health, civic engagement, and human rights are among the hardest hit.

The next Secretary-General must meet the crisis head-on. They must make the defence of civic space a strategic imperative. That means speaking out against governments that silence dissent and ensuring safe and meaningful participation for civil society at all levels. An effective way to do this would be to report on the implementation of the 2020 UN guidance note on civic space and accelerate its mainstreaming across the UN’s agencies and offices around the world.

Civil society remains a resilient engine for global progress. From climate justice and anti-corruption work to feminist organising, civil society groups often lead where governments and multilateral institutions falter. The UN would be well served by a Secretary General who sees civil society less as an after-thought and more as a co-creator of global policy who embodies feminist leadership principles and who understands that multilateralism cannot function without grassroots engagement—that justice, sustainability, and peace are not top-down aspirations, but bottom-up imperatives.

IPS UN Bureau

  Source

The Vietnam and Gaza Wars Shattered Young Illusions About US Leaders

Posted on by admin

Armed Conflicts, Civil Society, Global Governance, Headlines, Human Rights, IPS UN: Inside the Glasshouse, Middle East & North Africa, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion

Protestors gather in front of the White House on Pennsylvania Avenue in 1966 to protest the Vietnam War. Credit: White House Historical Association

SAN FRANCISCO, USA, May 2 2025 (IPS) – Eight years before the U.S.-backed regime in South Vietnam collapsed, I stood with high school friends at Manhattan’s Penn Station on the night of April 15, 1967, waiting for a train back to Washington after attending the era’s largest antiwar protest so far.

An early edition of the next day’s New York Times arrived on newsstands with a big headline at the top of the front page that said “100,000 Rally at U.N. Against Vietnam War.” I heard someone say, “Johnson will have to listen to us now.”

But President Lyndon Johnson dashed the hopes of those who marched from Central Park to the United Nations that day (with an actual turnout later estimated at 400,000). He kept escalating the war in Vietnam, while secretly also bombing Laos and Cambodia.

During the years that followed, antiwar demonstrations grew in thousands of communities across the United States. The decentralized Moratorium Day events on October 15, 1969 drew upward of 2 million people. But all forms of protest fell on deaf official ears. A song by the folksinger Donovan, recorded midway through the decade, became more accurate and powerful with each passing year: “The War Drags On.”

As the war continued, so did the fading of trust in the wisdom and morality of Johnson and his successor, Richard Nixon. Gallup polls gauged the steep credibility drop. In 1965, just 24 percent of Americans said involvement in the Vietnam War had been a mistake. By the spring of 1971, the figure was 61 percent.

The number of U.S. troops in Vietnam gradually diminished from the peak of 536,100 in 1968, but ground operations and massive U.S. bombing persisted until the signing of the Paris Peace Accords in late January 1973. American forces withdrew from Vietnam, but the war went on with U.S. support for 27 more months, until – on April 30, 1975 – the final helicopter liftoff from the roof of the U.S. embassy in Saigon signaled that the Vietnam War was indeed over.

By then, most Americans were majorly disillusioned. Optimism that public opinion would sway their government’s leaders on matters of war and peace had been steadily crushed while carnage in Southeast Asia continued. To many citizens, democracy had failed – and the failure seemed especially acute to students, whose views on the war had evolved way ahead of overall opinion.

At the end of the 1960s, Gallup found “significantly more opposition to President Richard Nixon’s Vietnam policies” among students at public and private colleges than in “a parallel survey of the U.S. general public: 44 percent vs. 25 percent, respectively.” The same poll “showed 69 percent of students in favor of slowing down or halting the fighting in Vietnam, while only 20 percent favored escalation.

This was a sharp change from 1967, when more students favored escalation (49 percent) than de-escalation (35 percent).”

Six decades later, it took much less time for young Americans to turn decisively against their government’s key role of arming Israel’s war on Gaza. By a wide margin, continuous huge shipments of weapons to the Israeli military swiftly convinced most young adults that the U.S. government was complicit in a relentless siege taking the lives of Palestinian civilians on a large scale.

A CBS News/YouGov poll in June 2024 found that Americans opposed sending “weapons and supplies to Israel” by 61-39 percent. Opposition to the arms shipments was even higher among young people. For adults under age 30, the ratio was 77-23.

Emerging generations learned that moral concerns about their country’s engagement in faraway wars meant little to policymakers in Washington. No civics textbook could prepare students for the realities of power that kept the nation’s war machine on a rampage, taking several million lives in Southeast Asia or supplying weapons making possible genocide in Gaza.

For vast numbers of Americans, disproportionately young, the monstrous warfare overseen by Presidents Johnson and Nixon caused the scales to fall from their eyes about the character of U.S. leadership. And like President Trump now, President Biden showed that nice-sounding rhetoric could serve as a tidy cover story for choosing to enable nonstop horrors without letup.

No campaign-trail platitudes about caring and joy could make up for a lack of decency. By remaining faithful to the war policies of the president they served, while discounting the opinions of young voters, two Democratic vice presidents – Hubert Humphrey and Kamala Harris – damaged their efforts to win the White House.

A pair of exchanges on network television, 56 years apart, are eerily similar.

In August 1968, appearing on the NBC program Meet the Press, Humphrey was asked: “On what points, if any, do you disagree with the Vietnam policies of President Johnson?”

“I think that the policies that the president has pursued are basically sound,” Humphrey replied.

In October 2024, appearing on the ABC program The View, Harris was asked: “Would you have done something differently than President Biden during the past four years?”

“There is not a thing that comes to mind,” Harris replied.

Young people’s votes for Harris last fall were just 54 percent, compared to 60 percent that they provided to Biden four years earlier.

Many young eyes recognized the war policy positions of Hubert Humphrey and Kamala Harris as immoral. Their decisions to stay on a war train clashed with youthful idealism. And while hardboiled political strategists opted to discount such idealism as beside the electoral point, the consequences have been truly tragic – and largely foreseeable.

Norman Solomon is the national director of RootsAction.org and executive director of the Institute for Public Accuracy. The paperback edition of his latest book, War Made Invisible: How America Hides the Human Toll of Its Military Machine, includes an afterword about the Gaza war.

IPS UN Bureau

  Source

Trump’s First 100 Days Portend Long-Lasting Damage to Press Freedom

Posted on by admin

Armed Conflicts, Civil Society, Crime & Justice, Featured, Global, Global Governance, Headlines, Human Rights, IPS UN: Inside the Glasshouse, Press Freedom, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion

NEW YORK, May 1 2025 (IPS) – Press freedom is no longer a given in the United States 100 days into President Donald Trump’s second term as journalists and newsrooms face mounting pressures that threaten their ability to report freely and the public’s right to know.

A new report released April 30 by the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ)– “Alarm bells: Trump’s first 100 days ramp up fear for the press, democracy,” noted that the administration has scaled up its rhetorical attacks and launched a startling number of actions using regulatory bodies and powerful allies that, taken together, may cause irreparable harm to press freedom in the U.S. and will likely take decades to repair.

The level of trepidation among U.S. journalists is such that CPJ has provided more security training since the November election than at any other period.

“This is a definitive moment for U.S. media and the public’s right to be informed. CPJ is providing journalists with resources at record rates so they can report safely and without fear or favor, but we need everyone to understand that protecting the First Amendment is not a choice, it’s a necessity. All our freedoms depend on it,” said CPJ CEO Jodie Ginsberg.

Emerging challenges to a free press in the United States fall under three main categories:
1) The restriction of access for some news organizations; 2) The increasing use of government and regulatory bodies against news organizations; and 3) Targeted attacks against journalists and newsrooms.

While The Associated Press (AP), a global newswire agency serving thousands of newsrooms in the U.S. and across the world, has faced retaliation for not adhering to state-mandated language, the Federal Communications Commission is mounting investigations against three major broadcasters – CBS, ABC, and NBC – along with the country’s two public broadcasters – NPR and PBS – in moves widely viewed as politically motivated.

“The rising tide of threats facing U.S. journalists and newsrooms are a direct threat to the American public,” said Ginsberg. “Whether at the federal or state level, the investigations, hearings, and verbal attacks amount to an environment where the media’s ability to bear witness to government action is already curtailed.”

Journalists who reached out to CPJ in recent months are worried about online harassment and digital and physical safety. Newsrooms have also shared with us worries about the possibility of punitive regulatory actions.

Since the presidential election last November until March 7 of this year, CPJ has provided safety consultations to more than 530 journalists working in the country. This figure was only 20 in all of 2022, marking an exponential increase in the need for safety information.

Globally, the gutting of the U.S. Agency for Global Media resulted in the effective termination of thousands of journalist positions, and the elimination of USAID independent media support impoverished the news landscape in many regions across the globe where the news ecosystem is underdeveloped or information is severely restricted.

As the executive branch of the U.S. government is taking unprecedented steps to permanently undermine press freedom, CPJ is calling on the public, news organizations, civil society, and all branches, levels, and institutions of government – from municipalities to the U.S. Supreme Court – to safeguard press freedom to help secure the future of American democracy.

In particular, Congress must prioritize passage of the PRESS Act and The Free Speech Protection Act, both bipartisan bills that can strengthen and protect press freedom throughout the United States.

The Committee to Protect Journalists is an independent, nonprofit, and nonpartisan organization that promotes press freedom worldwide. We defend the right of journalists to report the news safely and without fear of reprisal.

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

Genocide Prevention & Responsibility to Protect

Posted on by admin

Armed Conflicts, Civil Society, Global, Global Governance, Headlines, Human Rights, Humanitarian Emergencies, International Justice, IPS UN: Inside the Glasshouse, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion

Commemorating Genocide Prevention and Awareness Month

NEW YORK, Apr 15 2025 (IPS) – April marks Genocide Prevention and Awareness Month, a time to reflect on the history, causes and victims of past genocides and to mobilize the necessary resolve to confront risks facing populations around the world today who face the threat of genocide and other mass atrocity crimes not for anything they have done, but for who they are.

As we solemnly observe this month of commemoration, we also reflect on the 20th anniversary of the UN General Assembly’s unanimous adoption of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) principle – a concept which emerged in particular response to the international community’s failure to prevent the atrocity crimes committed in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia.

By shifting the focus to every state’s ‘responsibility to protect’ rather than the big powers’ ‘right to intervene,’ by emphasizing prevention as well as reaction, and by committing to international collective action – including, when necessary, through the collective security provisions of the UN Charter – R2P made possible a global consensus completely lacking in previous decades.

The 2005 World Summit brought us closer than ever to translating the post-Holocaust dream of “never again” into a meaningful reality. It was a significant diplomatic achievement for all heads of state and government worldwide to acknowledge that genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and ethnic cleansing – even when committed within a sovereign state – are matters of international concern and thus demand timely and decisive response.

But 20 years later – with all too obvious horrors and civilian suffering still occurring in Gaza, Sudan, the DRC, Myanmar and elsewhere – it is clear that R2P is still at best a work in progress. It is time to reflect on what we have learned about preventing and responding to the atrocity crimes outlined in the World Summit Outcome Document, and to focus on how we can do better.

On the plus side, considerable progress has been made in our collective knowledge of the risk factors, causes and dynamics that drive mass atrocity crimes and in enhancing our responsiveness to warning signs, including through the development of the UN’s Framework of Analysis for Atrocity Crimes. There is now a solid understanding of the wide range of preventive measures available, which includes not only a response to imminent and emerging risks, but also instituting policies, practices and structures that build long-term societal resilience to atrocity crimes.

Alongside these advances is a growing awareness that the different tools available for changing the behavior of would-be perpetrators, or for making victims less vulnerable, must be situated in a more coherent preventive strategy that is tailored to each context.

Moreover, the atrocity prevention agenda has been operationalized across the UN system. The creation of the Joint Office on Genocide Prevention and the Responsibility to Protect has been central to strengthening the UN’s early warning capabilities, as well as for developing the conceptual and practical aspects of R2P.

Since the inception of the Special Adviser on the Responsibility to Protect role, successive Special Advisers have been instrumental in identifying risk factors and clarifying best practices by states, regional organizations and the UN system in response to the threat of atrocity crimes.

In addition, the regular cycle of UN Secretary-General reports and General Assembly debates has reinforced the principle and fostered greater consensus and shared understanding within the UN system. The Group of Friends of R2P, with over 55 members from across all regions, is an important mobilizing force within the UN to advance effective atrocity crime prevention and response.

Over 60 countries from all regions of the world, along with the European Union and Organization of American States, have also appointed an R2P Focal Point, an important step for institutionalizing atrocity prevention at the national level. The appointment of a national R2P Focal Point is crucial for strengthening domestic capacity to fulfill the responsibility to protect, including by improving intra-governmental and inter-governmental efforts to prevent and halt atrocity crimes.

Furthermore, the international community has also made strides in its willingness and capacity to hold perpetrators responsible through international investigative bodies and mechanisms, international courts and tribunals, and in national courts under the principle of universal jurisdiction. Transitional justice and memorialization also remain hallmarks of a broader commitment to deal with the past and promote truth, justice and non-recurrence.

Nonetheless, for all these significant institutional advances, we are all acutely aware that, 20 years on from the World Summit, the principle of R2P is under acute strain. There is a deeply troubling disconnect between the unanimous commitment to protecting populations from atrocity crimes and achieving consistent implementation and concrete preventive action.

All too often, effective national, regional and international action is inhibited by self-interested political arguments advanced in key institutions with a capacity to make a difference, including the UN Security Council. When principles and their practical application are contested it is time, more than ever, for UN member states to stand firm and do the hard work of continuing to find and build the consensus needed to protect populations at risk.

Moreover, there is a worrying decline in attention to atrocity crime prevention and the role of the Special Adviser on R2P within the UN Secretariat. This stands in stark contrast to the still very strong support from the great majority of UN member states and from civil society, human rights defenders, affected communities and victims’ and survivors’ groups around the world.

To consolidate the effectiveness of R2P, there is much more that needs to be done, and the work needs to start at home – not least at the UN Headquarters, but also on a national and regional level. At the core of R2P is a responsibility to invest in the institutional architecture to prevent the drivers of atrocity crimes from emerging or intensifying.

This anniversary year presents a crucial opportunity for the UN system, and particularly the UN Secretary-General and the Secretariat, to demonstrate ongoing commitment to fulfilling the responsibility to protect across all regions of the world.

The UN has proven time and again that it can mobilize resources and expertise to safeguard those at risk, with a notable track record of defending human rights and protecting vulnerable populations despite facing immense challenges. Rather than retreating from these efforts, it is critical that the UN and its member states redouble them, by honing and strengthening the capabilities needed to deliver effective prevention and response. Political and ideological differences must not be allowed to distract us from identifying signs of increased risk, wherever they may be, and taking early action to prevent atrocity crimes.

The strong commitments made in 2005 are as relevant today as they were 20 years ago. At a time of escalating conflicts, as well as threats to multilateralism and international justice, the UN Secretary-General and the UN must provide an alternative vision for the future in which a key element is the consistent implementation of R2P.

The future of R2P will only be secured if we – the UN system, intergovernmental and regional organizations, governments, civil society organizations and affected communities – fight for it and generate the political will to act. It would be a tragedy to give in to cynicism and skepticism, to overlook the continuing power of R2P as an inspiring ideal and to abandon the goal of seeing it fully and effectively implemented in all its dimensions.

This month of commemoration must serve as a reminder that indifference and inaction should never be an acceptable response whenever and wherever populations face the threat of genocide and other atrocity crimes.

Professor Gareth Evans is Co-Chair, International Advisory Board, Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect; Dr. Jennifer Welsh is Chair, International Advisory Board, Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect.

IPS UN Bureau

  Source

How to Ensure Election of the First Woman Secretary-General: A Daunting Challenge Before the United Nations

Posted on by admin

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

Opinion

Ambassador Anwarul K. Chowdhury is former Under-Secretary-General and High Representative of the UN and Chairman of the UN’s Administrative and Budgetary Committee in 1997-1998 that approved Kofi Annan’s first reform budget.

A participant addresses a townhall meeting between the UN Secretary General and civil society groups. Credit: UN Photo/Evan Schneider

NEW YORK, Apr 14 2025 (IPS) – On 21 March 2025, the 69th session of the Commission for the Status of Women, popularly referred to as the CSW69, concluded its two-week-long annual meet which commenced on 10 March.

It is considered to be the largest annual gathering under the United Nations umbrella of women activists from various parts of the world representing mainly their civil society organizations. This year an astounding number of over 11,000 participants registered on the NGO CSW69 Forum platform.

This year’s session, publicized as Beijing+30, focused on the status of the implementation of the Declaration and Platform for Action adopted at the Fourth World Conference on Women held in Beijing in 1995. Some of the civil society activists reminded that 2025 was also the 25th anniversary of the pioneering UN Security Council resolution 1325 adopted in 2000 highlighting the need for recognizing the women’s positive contributions in the area of peace and security.

This year for the first time the civil society events organized parallel to the CSW69 included the issue of electing a woman Secretary-General of the United Nations (UNSG) in its 80-year-old existence. Two such events focused solely on the dire urgency of electing the next and first woman UNSG.

Ambassador Anwarul K. Chowdhury

The first deliberation on this subject was held on 5 March as a pre-event for the CSW69 and was titled “A Historic First? Tracking State Responses to Having a Feminist Woman UN Secretary-General” and sponsored by the Global Network of Women Peacebuilders (GNWP), NYU School of International Studies and 1 For 8 Billion.

The second event was held on the last day the CSW69 titled “Gender Equality at the Highest Level: Electing a Woman Secretary-General” sponsored by WomanSG campaign and the Academic Council on the United Nations System (ACUNS). I was invited to speak at both of these events.

The incumbent Antonio Guterres, a former Prime Minister of Portugal, is scheduled to end his 10-year-old two-term tenure on 31 December 2026. The decision to elect the new UNSG is expected not earlier than October of that year. Article 97 of the UN Charter mentions that “… The Secretary-General shall be appointed by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council. He shall be the chief administrative officer of the Organization.”

The UN Member States may have taken the last sentence of this article too literally and elected only men as UNSG. As we all know, the Charter of the United Nations, when signed in 1945, was the first international agreement to affirm the principle of equality between women and men.

I recall Eleanor Roosevelt’s words asserting that “Too often the great decisions are originated and given shape in bodies made up wholly of men, or so completely dominated by them that whatever of special value women have to offer is shunted aside without expression.”

It is a reality that politics, more so security, is a man’s world.

Talking of political participation of women, sadly the United Nations, being the greatest champion of women’s equality and rights, sadly its own record is not something which we can be proud of.

To assist the UN move in the right direction and assert its credibility, in September 2012, a “Call to Action” was issued to world leaders gathering at the UN by IMPACT Leadership 21 and co-signed by me as the Founder of the Global Movement for The Culture of Peace (GMCoP) – and reiterated in 2016 – asking for urgent action, particularly for the appointment of a Woman as the next Secretary-General of the United Nations.

In its eight decades of existence, the world body has elected ONLY MEN to that post, as if only men are destined to lead the United Nations.

In an opinion piece titled “The Elusive Woman Secretary-General” published in the IPS Journal on 14 October 2016, the day after election of the current Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, I expressed my frustration saying that “The Security Council members were totally insensitive to a groundswell of support worldwide for a woman as the next Secretary-General.

They advanced the legacy of ignoring the 50 per cent of humanity in their action. This is an absolute aberration of the system whereby the 15 members of the Council impose their choice prompted by P-5 pressure and manipulation upon the total membership of 193, not to speak of the wide swath of civil society opinion and activism for a woman Secretary-General.”

I went on to ring the alarm bell by cautioning that “It is so very unfortunate that in the selection process politics has trumped women’s equality, violating UN Charter’s Article 8 which underscores the eligibility and equality of men and women to participate in any capacity in all its organs – principal or subsidiary.”

In another opinion piece published on 20 June 2011, a little more than five years before the earlier one, titled “Ban’s Second Term: The Case for a Woman Secretary-General”, I wrote that “And the most important “reform” that is needed for the choice of the U.N. leader is in the mindset of the Member States.

At this point of time in human progress, it is a shame that in the 65 years (that was in 2011) of its existence, the U.N. was not able to elect a woman to lead. Not only that, but there has been no candidate even nominated to be considered for election.”

Continuing I wrote that “Notwithstanding all the U.N. resolutions, treaties, declarations and pronouncements asserting the equality of women, it is a pity that the U.N. has kept 50 percent of humanity out of consideration for its highest office. The organisation is undoubtedly poorer as it restricted its choice only to half of the potential candidates.”

I also added that “The suffering image and credibility of the U.N. in the eyes of the international community in recent years underscores the increasing need for effective and committed leadership that puts the organisation before self and is not solely triggered by ‘command-and-control’ mode.”

Coincidentally these words are increasingly valid at the present time. There are certain reality-checks which need to be kept in mind in connection with the election of a woman SG.

For example,

– In 2016, none of the P-5 has voted for a woman candidate when there were a number of accomplished ones to choose from.

– Geographic rotations among the five regions of the UN Member States for the SG’s nomination are NOT followed in the Security Council as it is done meticulously in the election of the President of the General Assembly. P-5 decides unilaterally.

– A Member State may publicly support a woman SG in principle but may decide to vote otherwise for political reasons. Secret ballot would not let us know how the country voted.

– Another accompanying reality is that a Member State may vote for a woman to begin with but changes the vote if its vote is needed for a decision in favour of a man. Again, secret ballots keep us in the dark.

– P-5 meets for coordination outside the UN premises more often than envisaged. SG’s election is a major issue needing such coordination.

Now the big question is how to ensure the election of a woman as the next UNSG considering all the known or hidden realities. Member States – and I mean all 193 of them, not just 15 belonging to the Security Council – need to fulfil their role and responsibility accorded to them by the UN Charter for the appointment of the UN SG.

I have three suggestions to offer:

First, easiest and most natural choice for getting a woman elected SG is for the Security Council to nominate the current Deputy Secretary-General, a woman, a staunch believer in the feminist principles, a competent, respected leader, acclaimed as the midwife of the SDGs and above all, knows well the workings of the Organization. In case you wonder about the name, she is Amina Mohammad hailing from Nigeria.

Second, In recent times, names of a number of women from the Latin America and the Caribbean regional Group (GRULAC) of the United Nations are being floated asserting that, according to rotational practice for the post of UNSG, it is the turn of that Group to provide the next UNSG.

That situation would facilitate election of a woman UNSG on two conditions, one, there has to be a unanimous agreement among the Security Council members that it is GRULAC’s turn; and two, the GRULAC members should decide to nominate ONLY women candidates to the SC. In that case, the choice for the SC is restricted to only women candidates from GRULAC.

And finally, probably an outrageous but, at the same time, still workable Third suggestion

If the none of the earlier suggestions work in getting a woman SG, the General Assembly, which decides upon recommendation of the Security Council, should, by a big majority, reject the “man” candidate nominated by the SC.

Thereafter, the SC is likely to deliberate and assess the situation and hopefully change its nomination to a woman. If the SC nominates another “man“ again, the GA should reject that nomination by vote again forcing the SC to change, at the end, its nomination to a woman.

To get a sizable majority from the General Assembly Member States, the civil society need to lobby and mobilize more and more countries to vote for the General Assembly’s action for a woman SG.

I have in mind the model of the civil society campaign that Jody Williams and the International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL), later awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1997, mobilized for the Landmines Ban Treaty* as the governments failed to agree.

This unconventional and untried last suggestion is a potential game-changer. A firm, united and determined assertion by the UN General Assembly of its Charter-mandated role to appoint the UN SG can bring back the lost credibility of the UN by electing a woman as its next leader after eight decades of aberration.

* The Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction of 1997, known informally as the Ottawa Treaty or the Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention.

Ambassador Anwarul K. Chowdhury was also the initiator of the Security Council resolution 1325 as the Council President in March 2000 underscoring women’s equality of participation; President/Chairman of the UNICEF Executive Board on two occasions; and a well-known analyst of the UN system’s work.

IPS UN Bureau

  Source