Migrant Smuggling: Europe Must Make a U-Turn

Posted on by admin

Civil Society, Europe, Global, Global Governance, Headlines, Human Rights, Humanitarian Emergencies, International Justice, IPS UN: Inside the Glasshouse, Migration & Refugees, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion

Picture Alliance / Pacific Press | Geovien So

BRUSSELS, Belgium, Apr 11 2025 (IPS) – Europe must understand that the only reasonable and humane way to tackle migrant smuggling is to open regular routes for people to reach Europe in safety and dignity.

Europe’s approach to migrant ‘smuggling’ is harmful and absurd.

Instead of tackling the lack of regular pathways, thereby forcing people to embark in dangerous migration journeys, European countries are targeting migrants, human rights defenders, journalists, lawyers and ordinary citizens — all while injecting billions into the border surveillance industry.

People rely on smuggling because there are no better ways to get to Europe. But cracking down on alleged ‘smugglers’ – often migrants themselves – does not create better options. On the contrary, it pushes more people onto ever more dangerous routes, while threatening those who help them — and the EU’s new Facilitation Directive is likely to make things worse.

Criminalising solidarity

Proposed by the European Commission at the end of 2023, this Directive is meant to update previous rules to counter migrant smuggling (the 2002 Facilitators Package). However, in reality, it follows the same old broken pattern.

The current text, largely validated by the EU Council last December, expands the definition of what can be considered ‘migrant smuggling’ and ups prison sentences across the board.

The European Parliament is set to start debating its own position on the Directive this month, with a final vote expected in the summer, before entering final negotiations with the Commission and Council towards the end of the year.

What’s more, the text fails to clearly protect solidarity with people in an irregular situation from criminalisation. There is no ‘humanitarian clause’ included among the legally binding provisions; member states are simply invited not to criminalise acts of solidarity.

This generates significant legal uncertainty, as recognised by a recent study requested by the European Commission itself. With far-right and other anti-immigration forces in power in several member states and leading in polls in others, it’s easy to see how such a failure leaves the door wide open to the criminalisation and harassment of family members, NGOs, human rights defenders and ordinary citizens who are helping people in need.

This is not a fantasy scenario. At PICUM we have been documenting a steady increase in the criminalisation of solidarity with migrants in recent years. Between January 2021 and March 2022, at least 89 people were criminalised, in 2022 at least 102 and in 2023 at least 117.

Migrants themselves are also increasingly being prosecuted for simply helping fellow travellers through routes made irregular and dangerous by repressive policies.

These figures are most likely an undercount. Statistical and official data on those accused, charged or convicted of smuggling and related offences are often lacking. Many cases go unreported by the media or because people, especially migrants themselves, fear retaliation.

Behind these numbers are people who have saved lives at sea, given a lift or provided shelter, food, water or clothes. In Latvia, two citizens were charged with facilitating irregular entry simply for giving food and water to migrants stranded at the border with Belarus.

In Poland, five people are facing up to five years in prison for providing humanitarian aid to people stranded at the border with Belarus.

Just a few weeks ago, Italian judges in Crotone acquitted Maysoon Majidi, a Kurdish-Iranian activist and filmmaker, who was arrested in 2023 on human trafficking charges following a landing of migrants in Calabria. Majidi faced a sentence of two years and four months in prison.

The prosecutor in Crotone had accused her of being ‘the captain’s assistant’ because, based on the unverified testimonies of two people on board, she distributed water and food on the vessel. The ‘witnesses’ later retracted their statements, but Majidi still spent 300 days in pre-trial detention.

In Greece, an Egyptian fisherman and his 15-year-old child were charged with smuggling, simply because the father reluctantly agreed to pilot their boat in order to afford the journey. The father was placed in pre-trial detention and sentenced to 280 years in prison. Not only has the child been separated from his father, but he is now facing the same charges in a juvenile court.

Who benefits?

Counter-smuggling policies clearly fail to make migration safer. As migration expert Hein De Haas has written: ‘It is the border controls that have forced migrants to take more dangerous routes and that have made them more and more dependent on smugglers to cross borders.

Smuggling is a reaction to border controls rather than a cause of migration in itself.’ So, who actually benefits from these policies — besides politicians chasing short-term electoral gains?

Between 2021 and 2027, the EU’s budget dedicated to the management of borders, visa and customs controls increased by 135 per cent compared to the previous programming period, from €2.8 billion to €6.5 billion.

Europe must understand that the only reasonable and humane way to tackle migrant smuggling is to open regular routes for people to reach Europe in safety and dignity.

Much of this budget increase is driven by private corporations, including major defence companies such as Airbus, Thales, Leonardo and Indra, which have a vested economic interest in border surveillance.

According to research by the foundation porCausa, the Spanish government awarded over €660 million for the control of Spain’s southern border between 2014 and 2019. Most of this money went to 10 large corporations, mainly for border surveillance (€551 million), detention and deportation (€97.8 millions).

In the negotiation phase of the Facilitation Directive, the Council has already adopted a position that would leave the door open to the criminalisation of migrants and the provision of humanitarian aid.

The European Parliament still has the opportunity to adopt an ambitious mandate. MEPs should understand what is at stake if a binding clause to protect migrants and solidarity from criminalisation is not introduced.

Beyond this Directive, Europe must understand that the only reasonable and humane way to tackle migrant smuggling is to open regular routes for people to reach Europe in safety and dignity.

Michele LeVoy is Director, Platform for International Cooperation on Undocumented Migrants (PICUM), a network of organizations working to ensure social justice and human rights for undocumented migrants.

Source: International Politics and Society (IPS), Brussels.

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

Challenging the Taliban’s Violations of Afghan Women’s Rights

Posted on by admin

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

Opinion

Dr. Alon Ben-Meir is a retired professor of international relations, most recently at the Center for Global Affairs at New York University (NYU). He taught courses on international negotiation and Middle Eastern studies.

A 31-year-old woman sits by the window. She used to be an entrepreneur before the Taliban takeover. Credit: UN Women/Sayed Habib Bidell

NEW YORK, Apr 7 2025 (IPS) – The Taliban’s egregious violations of women’s rights in Afghanistan, especially banning women from education and even from speaking in public, are beyond the pale. Imposing economic sanctions alone, however, has not changed in any significant way the Taliban’s treatment of women.

By demonstrating that they understand the Taliban’s cultural heritage and religious beliefs, Western powers, with the support of several Arab states, will be in a better position to persuade the Taliban that respecting women’s rights is consistent with their beliefs and would be greatly beneficial to their country.

Although the Taliban were exposed to democracy, freedom, and equality for both men and women for nearly 20 years during the American presence, they reversed these reforms once they reassumed power following the American withdrawal in August 2021, even though the Afghans embraced such freedoms wholeheartedly. From the Taliban’s perspective, these reforms were contrary to their beliefs and way of life.

The Taliban’s Egregious Women’s Rights Violations

In 2021, the Taliban banned all education for girls beyond the sixth grade, which has deprived a total of 2.2 million girls and women of their right to education. UNICEF Executive Director Catherine Russell stated last month that the ban continues to harm the future of millions of Afghan girls, and that over four million girls will have been deprived of an education beyond the primary level if the ban persists for another five years. Accordingly, she said, “The consequences for these girls – and for Afghanistan – are catastrophic.”

Since 2021, Afghan women have faced unimaginable oppression. Beyond education bans, the Taliban forced women to cover themselves completely, with criminal penalties for those who refuse to comply. In December 2024, they announced their plan to shut down all NGOs employing women over so-called dress code violations.

Their voices are literally silenced through an August 2024 law that bans women from speaking outside the home. Their rights are stripped away, and their resistance met with brutality. In the shadows of war and conflict, women and girls endure unimaginable suffering, facing heightened levels of gender-based violence, including arbitrary killings, torture, and forced marriage and sexual violence, leaving deep physical and emotional scars.

The Taliban are not oblivious to these findings, as some officials have publicly argued against some bans, but they nevertheless continue to violate women’s rights under the pretext of their bans being consistent with their religious and traditional role in Afghan society.

The Taliban are predominantly from the Pashtun tribes, which are indigenous to the region and have a strong tribal structure and cultural traditions, which influenced the Taliban’s socio-political orientation.

The Historic Perspective

To better understand the Taliban’s mindset, which reflects their resilience and extremism against foreign domination, it is important to reflect briefly on Afghanistan’s history. The region now known as Afghanistan was a target for invaders as early as the sixth century BCE, facing scores of foreign invaders up through the US-led invasion in 2001, yet has shown great resilience against foreign domination, as invaders repeatedly faced fierce resistance and were ultimately forced to withdraw.

Across centuries, Afghanistan has consistently defied foreign powers, earning its reputation as the “graveyard of empires.” The Taliban’s emergence as a movement was, in large part, a response to the chaos and power vacuum left by the Soviet withdrawal in 1990. They rose to power in 1996 and were ousted by the US-led invasion in 2001.

Afghan religious extremism stems from several factors. The U.S. and its allies funded and armed mujahideen fighters during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, fostering radical ideologies. Saudi-funded schools in Pakistan taught extreme Deobandi and Wahhabi ideologies to Afghan refugees, who returned to Afghanistan to fight in the Afghan Civil War.

Following the departure of the Soviets, the Taliban imposed puritanical Islam rooted in Deobandi ideology and ethnic and political manipulation. Extremism was used to consolidate power, suppress minorities, and resist foreign influence.

Cutting aid alone is not the answer

It is necessary for global powers to hold the Taliban accountable for gender persecution and take punitive actions, including cutting off financial aid; however, thus far, imposing economic sanctions alone has not yielded the desired results.

The Taliban’s harsh treatment of women remains unabated, and to effect a real change, the West must change its strategy.

While the threat of more sanctions should continue to hover over the Taliban’s heads, to effect the necessary changes to improve women’s rights, the West should take systematic measures that align with the group’s cultural and religious teachings.

Working with influential Muslim-majority countries, including Indonesia, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia, which is the leader of Sunni Islam, is key in order to challenge the Taliban’s interpretation of Sharia law while highlighting Quranic principles of equality and historical examples of female scholarship in Islam.

In Afghanistan, the restrictions on women’s rights, including education and dress codes, are based on interpretations of Islamic law and cultural practices rather than direct Quranic edicts. To demonstrate to the Taliban leaders that respecting women’s human rights complements rather than compromises their cultural and religious beliefs, the West’s Arab and Muslim partners should cite Quranic verses to make the case.

The first revelation to Prophet Muhammad begins with the command to “read,” which is seen as a universal call to acquire knowledge. Surah Al-Tawbah (9:71) emphasizes the equal responsibility of men and women in seeking knowledge and upholding moral values. Surah Al-Hadid (57:25) promotes education as a means to establish justice and equity in society.

Moreover, the Quran does not explicitly state that women should be segregated from men, nor that they must wear a hijab. Surah An-Nur (24:30-31) instructs both men and women to be modest and guard their private parts, certainly not their heads or faces, but the Taliban interprets this to support the wearing of a burqa that covers Afghan women from head to toe.

In that regard, the West should provide aid to Afghan clerics who advocate for girls’ education and women’s rights within Islamic teachings, and invoke women’s literacy in Afghanistan before the rise of the Taliban to encourage those clerics.

Additionally, targeted economic support for infrastructure projects and agricultural investments should be offered in exchange for reopening girls’ secondary schools or permitting women’s employment in the health and education sectors while emphasizing the economic cost of excluding women.

In conjunction with that, preferential trade terms for Afghan products produced by women should be provided while highlighting how educated women improve public health outcomes for all.

The West should also support community-based schools and computer and science training for women and girls, which reliable local NGOs should administer, and provide safe channels for women activists to air their grievances. Culturally, the West should invest in programs showcasing women artists, poets, and historians as custodians of Afghanistan’s cultural heritage.

In that regard, the media should be used to disseminate success stories of Muslim-majority countries, like Bangladesh and the UAE, where women’s education and employment coexist with cultural and religious values.

By combining religious dialogue, economic pragmatism, and grassroots movements to empower women, the West should pursue incremental progress, which will be more sustainable than seeking instantaneous change.

Recalling the way the Afghan people were treated by foreign powers over the centuries, the Taliban have developed an instinctive adversarial reaction to anything proposed by any foreign power.

This certainly does not justify their treatment of women, but they need to be persuaded, however, that the proposed changes can only benefit their country’s socio-economic conditions while respecting women’s rights, without compromising their cultural and religious beliefs.

IPS UN Bureau

  Source

Collapse of Gaza Ceasefire and its Devastating Impact on Women and Girls

Posted on by admin

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

Opinion

Women walk along destroyed streets in Gaza. Credit: UNDP/Abed Zagout

JERUSALEM, Apr 2 2025 (IPS) – The end of the tenuous ceasefire in Gaza is having disastrous consequences for women and girls. From 18 to 25 March—in just those 8 days, 830 people were killed—174 women, 322 children, with 1,787 more injured.

Let me break that down because these are not just numbers, they are people: every single day from the 18 to 25 March, an average of 21 women and over 40 children are killed.

This is not collateral damage; this is a war where women and children bear the highest burden. They comprise nearly 60 per cent of the recent casualties, a harrowing testament to the indiscriminate nature of this violence.

What we are hearing from our partners and the women and girls we serve is a call to end this war, to let them live. It is a situation of pure survival and survival of their families. Because as they say, there is simply nowhere to go. They are telling us they will not move again, since no safe places anyway.

As a woman recently said to us from Deir Al Balah, “My mother says, ‘Death is the same, whether in Gaza City or Deir al-Balah… We just want to return to Gaza.” This is a feeling that is shared by many other women I had an opportunity to meet with during my last visit in January and February.

How is the UN helping civilians in Gaza?. Credit: UNICEF/Abed Zagout

The UN says Gaza is facing a food crisis.

Another woman from Al-Mirak tells us “We’re glued to the news. Life has stopped. We didn’t sleep all night, paralyzed. We can’t leave. My area is cut off. I’m terrified of being hit – every possible nightmare races through my mind.” This is simply no way of living.

Since March 2nd, humanitarian aid has been halted by the Israelis. And people’s lives are again at risk since the Israeli bombardments resumed on March 18.

The ceasefire, while brief, had provided some breathing. During that time, I had the opportunity to visit some of our partner organizations who were repairing their offices in Gaza City with what material was available. I saw neighbours coming together to clean some of the rubble on their streets, heard children playing. Met with women who expressed their fragile hope for peace and for rebuilding their lives. I saw thousands of people on the roads back to Gaza City.

And now that hope is gone. For now, 539 days, the relentless war has ravaged Gaza, obliterating lives, homes, and futures. This is not merely a conflict; it is a war on women—on their dignity, their bodies, their very survival.

Women have been stripped of their fundamental rights, forced to exist in a reality where loss is their only constant. Cumulatively, over 50,000 people have been killed and more than 110,000 injured.

It is crucial to protect the rights and dignity of the people of Gaza, especially women and girls, who have borne the brunt of this war. Women are desperate for this nightmare to cease. But the horror persists, the atrocities escalate, and the world seems to be standing by, normalizing what should never be normalized.

As we have seen in these 18 months of war, women play a crucial role during times of crisis. However, after all this time, they speak of being trapped in a never-ending nightmare.

This war must end. I, and others, have echoed this plea countless times, amplifying the voices of the women inside Gaza. Yet the devastation deepens.

What will we tell future generations when they ask? That we did not know? That we did not see?

International humanitarian law must be upheld. The systems we established to protect humanity must be respected. All humans must be treated equally. This war is shattering core values and principles.

As UN Women, we join the UN Secretary-General in his strong appeal for the ceasefire to be respected, for unimpeded humanitarian access to be restored, and for the remaining hostages and all those arbitrarily detained to be released immediately and unconditionally.

Maryse Guimond, UN Women Special Representative in Palestine, speaking at the Palais des Nations from Jerusalem, on the disastrous consequences for women and girls following the end of a tenuous ceasefire in Gaza.

IPS UN Bureau

  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