The world must take action to improve food security, which is at risk due to conflict and climate change. Credit, Busani Bafana/IPS
BULAWAYO, Zimbabwe, Oct 15 2024 (IPS) – High levels of hunger will continue for another 136 years in many developing countries, according to a new report assessing global hunger.
The report, the 2024 Global Hunger Index (GHI), paints a grim picture, predicting that global hunger levels will remain high for another century. If more progress is not made to end hunger, it will continue to reverse many development gains. The report blames the combined crises of conflict, climate change, high food prices and mounting debt, all of which are denying billions of people the right to adequate food.
Hunger Here To Stay
Published by Concern Worldwide and Welthungerhilfe, on October 10, 2024, the GHI reveals that at least 64 countries are unlikely to reach low hunger levels until 2160 if the current pace of change continues.
Hunger is at serious or alarming levels in 42 countries, with conflicts exacerbating food crises in places like Gaza and Sudan, where famine is already present in North Darfur, the report found.
Now in its 19th year, the GHI ranks countries based on recorded levels of undernourishment, child stunting, child wasting and child mortality. Of the 136 countries examined, 36 face serious hunger levels, while six at the bottom of the index—Somalia, Yemen, Chad, Madagascar, Burundi, and South Sudan—have alarming hunger levels. In 2023 alone, 281.6 million people in 59 countries and territories faced crisis-level or acute food insecurity, including Gaza, Sudan, Haiti and Burkina Faso.
The report warns that the chances of meeting the UN’s goal of zero hunger by 2030 are grim.
Concern Worldwide’s Chief Executive, David Regan, described the situation as disappointing that the 2030 goal was now out of reach.
“Our response should be to redouble our efforts to regain momentum,” Regan told IPS. “We need global action to tackle hunger.”
Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia are the regions most affected by hunger. According to the GHI, about 22 countries in Africa are facing serious hunger levels. Of the top ten countries cited for having serious to alarming hunger levels, five are in Africa.
David Regan, Chief Executive, Concern Worldwide. Credit: Concern worldwide
Conflict, Climate Change and High Debt Fuel Hunger
Large-scale armed conflicts, climate change, high food prices, market disruptions, economic downturns, and debt crises in many low- and middle-income countries have combined to complicate efforts to reduce hunger, the report found.
“Conflict can only be resolved where the external stakeholders that are typically fueling the conflict, step away from using conflict to acquire the resources or to increase the instability of the most fragile states,” Regan told IPS. “Climate change will not stop until those responsible for the largest emissions reduce them. It is not possible to say that the human right to food is being respected globally when powerful nations are clearly not playing their role in addressing its causes.”
Regan criticized wealthy nations for not playing their part in addressing global hunger, stating that while they have not turned their backs on the issue, political interest in solving hunger has waned in recent years.
The report further notes that more than 115 million people globally are internally displaced—some have been forced to migrate as a result of persecution, conflict violence and many more displaced by weather-related disasters.
The wars in Gaza and Sudan have led to exceptional food crises, the report stated, flagging rising inequality between and within countries. Although extreme poverty in middle-income countries has decreased, income inequality remains persistently high, and poverty in the poorest countries is worse than before the COVID-19 pandemic.
Gender Equality, Key to Food Security
The report also draws attention to the link between gender inequality, food insecurity, and climate change, noting that these factors combined have put communities and countries under extreme stress.
FAO Director-General QU Dongyu delivers his speech during the opening session of 29th Session of the Committee on Agriculture. Credit: FAO/Cristiano Minichiello
“Governments must invest in and promote gender equality and climate change and recognize and deliver on the right to food so that all people are assured the right to food,” Regan said.
Ahead of World Food Day, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) has echoed the call for swift action to eliminate hunger and ensure everyone has access to safe, nutritious food.
The World Food Day is being marked under the theme Right to food for a better life and a better future, which underscores the urgency to provide varied and healthy food to all.
FAO Director General Qu Dongyu noted that 730 million people are facing hunger due to the global challenges caused by man-made and natural disasters. Besides, more than 2.8 billion people in the world cannot afford a healthy diet.
“There is no time to lose, we must take immediate action, we must act together,” Dongyu urged, reiterating that the right to food is a basic human right.
Oct 15 2024 (IPS) – CIVICUS discusses Afghanistan’s system of gender apartheid with Shaharzad Akbar, Executive Director of Rawadari, a human rights organisation founded by Afghans in exile.
Since regaining power in August 2021, the Taliban have banned women from all education beyond primary school and most jobs. They don’t allow women to travel without a male guardian or be seen in public, with severe penalties for violations. A new law introduced in August 2024 further silenced women by literally banning them from being heard in public. This received widespread international condemnation. Afghan civil society, mostly in exile, continues to document human rights abuses, advocate with international allies and campaign for change.
Shaharzad Akbar
How much space is there for civil society to operate in Afghanistan under the Taliban?
Not much. Although there’s still some civic resistance, mainly led by women, the Taliban have dismantled almost all civic structures. They have disbanded student associations and teachers’ unions and severely restricted the space for civil society to operate.
Long before they took power, the Taliban targeted civil society activists, journalists and religious and tribal leaders who challenged their rules. But when they regained power in August 2021, they used state institutions to further restrict civic space. It was women who resisted: just one day after the Taliban seized Kabul, they took to the streets to demand their rights. Independent media cautiously tried to cover these protests, but journalists were beaten and tortured. By January 2022, the Taliban were arresting women protesters. Cases of arbitrary detention, torture and intimidation and enforced disappearances have only increased since then.
The Taliban repealed laws protecting journalists and civil society, increased censorship and used intimidation to silence independent media. Anyone who criticises their government, even if it’s a social media post questioning electricity cuts, is likely to receive a phone call from the Taliban’s intelligence agency ordering them to delete it and not to raise the issue again.
It’s now impossible to work openly on human rights or freedom of expression in Afghanistan. The Taliban shut down the organisation I headed, the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission (AIHRC). Other organisations working on cultural rights, peacebuilding and social issues have either changed their mandates or left.
How have the Taliban responded to women’s resistance?
When they returned to power, the Taliban were surprised to see women take to the streets against them. Given the Taliban’s violent past, many men didn’t dare protest. But women, who the Taliban underestimated because they saw them as weak, stood together and challenged them publicly.
At first they thought the protests would die down, but when this didn’t happen, they responded with increased violence, imprisoning and torturing women activists and targeting their families. They also launched a smear campaign accusing them of not being ‘authentic’ Afghan women. Since then, they’ve tried to impose the idea that Afghan women belong at home, fully covered and without any public aspirations.
Many repressive decrees followed. First, women were segregated from men in universities, then required to cover up even more and finally banned altogether from universities in December 2022. Restrictions on women’s work also increased over time: women were first restricted to the government health and education sectors and they were later banned from working for civil society organisations and the United Nations (UN). The result was a full-blown system of gender apartheid.
But women refused to be erased and found new ways to resist. Some have continued to protest publicly, even at great risk to their lives and those of their families. A notable example is a protester who was detained with her four-year-old son. Others have opted for more subtle forms of resistance, setting up clandestine schools and seeking education delivered via WhatsApp by Afghan diaspora and international educators. Women’s rights activists, both inside and outside Afghanistan, have formed advocacy networks that are very active in international and regional forums.
When was Rawadari founded and what does it do?
Rawadari was publicly launched in December 2022 by a group of exiled former AIHRC staff. We had been documenting human rights abuses for over a decade and were forced into exile when the Taliban came to power. We set up Rawadari because we felt it was important to continue monitoring and documenting the situation, and to counter the disinformation being spread by the Taliban.
Rawadari’s work focuses on three areas. The first is human rights monitoring. To date, we have published nine reports, available in English and Afghanistan’s two main languages, Dari and Pashto. We want to ensure they are accessible to both local and international audiences.
Our second area is advocacy, particularly on accountability and victim-centred justice. We regularly submit reports to the UN and push for the Taliban to be brought before the International Court of Justice and International Criminal Court. We also advocate for additional resources for the UN Special Rapporteur on Afghanistan and are exploring other mechanisms, such as the establishment of a people’s tribunal for Afghanistan.
The third focus of our work is to promote a culture of human rights. This is difficult because, being outside Afghanistan, we have to do it through social media campaigns and online discussions and events. But we try to keep the conversation going and build alliances within the human rights community and beyond.
How are you campaigning for women’s rights?
In June this year, it was 1,000 days since the Taliban banned girls from going to school. To raise awareness and keep the issue alive in people’s minds, we launched the Iqra campaign (‘read’ in Arabic). We worked with Musawer, an organisation led by the renowned Afghan poet Shafiqa Khpalwak.
As we couldn’t use video footage for security reasons, we asked girls to record a short audio clip about how the ban on education affected them. This wasn’t easy, because many girls don’t have their own phones and identifying them could put them at risk. But we managed to gather voices from across Afghanistan.
The campaign was a success because it centred the voices of Afghan girls from every corner of the country and brought them to the fore, and because it gained support from men and women. Girls spoke about the dreams they’ve lost, the friendships they miss and the depression and negative thoughts they battle every day. Some said they’d witnessed early marriages among their friends. They all appealed to the international community to support their right to education. Some clips reached thousands of people, and prominent Afghan singers, TV personalities and other celebrities amplified the message and called for the reopening of girls’ schools.
We’ve also recently worked with Femena, a regional organisation, to launch a campaign in response to the recent ban on women’s voices in public spaces. Afghan women, at great risk, began singing as a form of protest. To show solidarity, we asked people around the world to share a song, poem or message of support each week. So we continue working to make sure Afghan girls and women are heard and not forgotten.
What challenges do you face in your work?
One of the main obstacles we face is the complete closure of the physical spaces in which we used to work. We can’t hold programmes in schools, universities or mosques in Afghanistan, nor can we speak openly about human rights issues without putting people at serious risk. This severely limits our ability to have face-to-face conversations, which are crucial for mobilising support and building relationships.
Another major challenge is gathering and verifying information. In the past, when there was a violent attack, we would go to hospitals and other local facilities to get details. Now the Taliban have ordered these facilities not to share sensitive information. Families of victims and survivors are also often afraid to speak out, making it difficult for us to document serious violations such as disappearances. Even when we promise them full and strict confidentiality, families are too afraid to come forward.
It is also a challenge to protect our network in Afghanistan. Something as simple as compensating people for their communication or transportation costs could put them in danger. We can’t organise collective online training sessions because participants could reveal their identities to each other, increasing the risks.
On the advocacy front, our biggest challenge is the lack of political will. Afghanistan has largely fallen off the international agenda and many western countries, particularly the USA, are reluctant to get involved. There’s a general perception that Afghanistan is a failed intervention they want to move on from, which leads to a lack of investment in improving the situation, particularly in this election year. Global attention and resources have also shifted to other crises such as the war in Gaza.
This risks normalising the Taliban regime. Neighbouring countries, including China, Iran and the United Arab Emirates, are gradually developing relations with it. We fear that the Taliban regime, which is not yet officially recognised by any country, may eventually gain the international recognition it seeks despite its policy of gender apartheid.
What international support does Afghan civil society need?
Humanitarian aid is key to meeting immediate needs, but it doesn’t address the underlying problems. There is an urgent need to improve the economy, but the international community must find ways to do this without empowering the Taliban, who don’t really care about the wellbeing of Afghan people.
States must be careful to avoid actions that could be seen as accepting the Taliban’s repressive policies and lead to their normalisation. For example, when they engage diplomatically with the Taliban, they must include women and civil society representatives in their delegations. It’s not about stopping engagement with the Taliban; it’s about ensuring every interaction sends a strong message about the importance of human rights, and specifically women’s rights.
People around the world can also help by urging their governments to take a principled approach in their engagement with the Taliban, prioritise women’s rights, hold the Taliban accountable and support education programmes, scholarships and initiatives for Afghan women and girls. They can also support organisations that campaign for their rights.
Even simple acts of solidarity like singing a song and reading a poem in support of Afghan women, if done collectively, can keep the international spotlight on Afghanistan, give hope to women and girls in Afghanistan and therefore make a difference.
Researchers have found that if abortion care is banned throughout the United States, the number of maternal deaths would rise by 24 percent. This number is even worse for Black women, whose deaths would rise by 39 percent. Credit: The Century Foundation
NEW YORK, Oct 15 2024 (IPS) – The right to abortion is a human rights issue that no government agency, courts, local and state legislators, or anyone else has the right to violate or impede in any shape or form. It is a fundamental right that every woman must be free to exercise with impunity, in consultation with her doctor only, who acts based on his/her professional ethics and responsibility.
The right to abortion, or, as Vice President Harris put it in her debate with Donald Trump, “a woman’s right to make decisions about her own body,” is an unquestionable human right and may be the most critical issue discussed in the 2024 election campaign.
It is a significant issue of bodily autonomy, which extends not only to abortion but to the right of people with disabilities to control what happens to their bodies, the choice to participate in organ donation, and the right to keep medical decisions private.
Moreover, it is a significant issue in healthcare; pregnancy complications such as placental abruption can be life-threatening, and abortion is the only way to save the life of the pregnant woman. Pre-existing health conditions can be severely worsened during pregnancy, even causing death.
It is a women’s rights issue—among the right to vote, the right to free movement, and the right to live free of violence. And yet, during his presidency, Trump hand-selected three Supreme Court justices who would overturn Roe v. Wade and supported states enacting abortion bans with no restrictions, including incest and rape.
The Republicans’ Moral Bankruptcy on Women’s Rights
The Republican Party’s obsession with abortion and, as a consequence, forced pregnancy knows no bounds. Each year, approximately 700 minors in the state of Michigan, for example, must acquire a parent’s consent or a judge’s order to obtain an abortion. In 2022, Michiganders were guaranteed access to abortion under the state’s Constitution – but state law still requires parental consent for people under the age of 18 who seek abortions.
As Bridge Michigan observes, this consent requirement – dating back to 1991 – “forces some young people to face abusive parents and others to go to court to obtain a ‘judicial bypass’ waiver instead.”
A March 36-page ACLU report, In Harm’s Way: How Michigan’s Forced Parental Consent for Abortion Law Hurts Young People, points out that “When a young person does not involve a parent, it is often rooted in concern for their safety and well-being. One healthcare provider said a young client told her, ‘I can’t tell my parents because they will literally beat me, kick me out, and I’ll be on the street.’”
Moreover, many young people do not have access to a parent or legal guardian, which compels them to go through the judicial bypass process, where they face an array of logistical hurdles, “including finding an attorney, scheduling and attending hearings, taking time off school, and securing transportation to and from the court.”
In short, this reactionary and archaic law threatens the health and safety of young people, and it should be immediately repealed in every state where it is enforced to ensure young people’s safety and dignity.
The Horrific Implications of the Abortion Ban
There are many heart-wrenching stories about many young women who sought abortions but ended up dying because of inaccessibility to a normal abortion under the supervision of a doctor. In Georgia, the deaths of Amber Nicole Thurman and Candi Miller have been attributed to the state’s recently overturned abortion ban.
Thurman died of sepsis; she had received an abortion out-of-state but had not fully expelled the fetal tissue, which required a dilation and curettage (D&C) that Georgia had criminalized with few exceptions. Miller similarly did not fully expel the fetal tissue after taking abortion pills and died from a lethal combination of painkillers after suffering in pain for days as her children watched.
According to her family, Miller declined to see a doctor “due to the current legislation on pregnancies and abortions.” The families of Thurman and Miller, as well as many pro-choice advocates, have blamed their deaths on the state’s restrictive bans. And while on September 30, Fulton County Superior Judge Robert C. I. McBurney overturned the state’s heavily restrictive six-week abortion ban, the Supreme Court could issue a stay on the ruling, putting the six-week ban back in place.
According to ProPublica, Georgia’s four Planned Parenthood clinics have since been flooded with calls to schedule appointments, including from women in neighboring states where restrictive bans are still in place. While Republican governor Brian Kemp railed against the ruling, stating “…the will of Georgians and their representatives has been overruled by the personal beliefs of one judge,” the flood of appointments clearly demonstrates that the restrictive law is not the will of the people most affected, but solely of the predominantly chauvinist male lawmakers who will never have to face the decision about their own bodily autonomy.
I firmly stand with the women of Georgia and strongly support the ruling of Judge McBurney, who firmly stated in his ruling, “The Court finds that, until the pregnancy is viable, a woman’s right to make decisions about her body and her health remains private and protected, i.e., remains her business and her business alone.”
Fueling Other Regressive Policies
What is even more troubling is that many politicians and anti-choice activists are using their anti-abortion stance to fuel other regressive policies, such as child marriage. Last year, in a debate in Wyoming over ending child marriage, the state’s Republican Party promoted ‘analysis’ from Capitol Watch for Wyoming Families, which stated, “Marriage is the only institution in Wyoming Statute designed to keep a child’s father and mother living under the same roof and cooperating in the raising of any children that they, together, conceive… Since young men and women may be physically capable of begetting and bearing children before the age of 16, marriage MUST remain open to them for the sake of those children [emphasis added].”
Shameless GOP legislators are more concerned about the home lives of theoretical, future children rather than the living, breathing children who may be pregnant as victims of sexual abuse and whose parents fail them by forcing them into marriages they are not emotionally ready for or may not even want.
As state Rep. Liz Storer (D) stated in 2023, “In Wyoming, you could be married younger than you can legally consent to sex. Think about what that means. A man rapes a child. Is the man charged with rape? Not if the child is forced to marry him.”
And while Wyoming’s bill raising the minimum age to 18 (albeit allowing 16- and 17-year-olds to marry with judicial and parental consent) passed, this despicable and disingenuous argument continues to circulate around the country, which must be combatted at every turn.
It is hard to exaggerate the crucial importance of women’s rights to abortion in this election, not only because women must be free to decide for themselves about their biological needs but also about their freedom and autonomy to live their lives and have families as they see fit and desirable.
Former President Trump and his conspirators in the Senate, House, and state and local legislative bodies are determined to rob women of their freedom. They are doing exactly that: a violation of human rights in every sense of the word, and it must be condemned in the strongest terms.
No woman should ever believe Trump, who is trumpeting his false statements that he will not pass a national abortion ban. Every woman should remember his bigotry and dishonesty in dealing with just about every issue during his first term as president. Should he be reelected, women, who make up 50 percent of the electorate, will be disfranchised and lose their freedom, which is the bedrock of the American constitution.
On the other hand, Kamala Harris was the first vice president in history to visit a Planned Parenthood clinic, has firmly supported reinstating the protections of Roe v. Wade, has talked with the women of this country about this crucial issue, and has been a strong advocate of what women rightfully demand: the freedom to make decisions about one’s own body.
In this presidential election, there is only one option to uphold women’s right to abortion, which is a fundamental human rights issue that has made America proud for more than two centuries. In this pivotal election, only Kamala Harris will protect the sanctity of human rights, of which women’s right to abortion is inseparable.
Dr. Alon Ben-Meir is a retired professor of international relations, most recently at the Center for Global Affairs at NYU. He taught courses on international negotiation and Middle Eastern studies. alon@alonben-meir.com
In Lima, Peru, during a 2021 national demonstration by indigenous women movements. Credit: Felipe Caicedo
BOGOTA, Colombia, Oct 15 2024 (IPS) – Information manipulation and misinformation are not new phenomena, but they have taken on exaggerated importance, especially with the massive use of social media.
Hostile and stigmatizing narratives against civil society and civic activism, whether intentional or not, especially when propagated by authorities, create undue restrictions and hinder the exercise of the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association globally, and is contributing to the growing authoritarianism and the closing of civic space.
Different types of unjustified narratives are being used globally to target and silence civil society activists and protests: i) accusations of threat to State security and terrorism, facilitated by broad anti-terrorism laws. ii) labels related to treason to the nation and the national influence, including calling ‘foreign agents’ or ‘agents of foreign influence’ to organizations that receive foreign funding. iii) ‘anti-development’ rhetoric used to target land right defenders and climate justice activism. iv) narratives exploiting discrimination and structural racism, including sexual and gender-based violence, and attacks to associations aiding refugees and migrants; among others.
The problem is that these stories, labels and narratives do not remain solely in the discursive field. Activists subjected to stigmatization, and their families, face intimidation, physical attacks and online harassment.
Branding civil society, movements and activists as “terrorists” or “traitors” has a serious impact on their lives, well-being and economic situation; it silences them and leads to the defunding of associations and their illegal dissolution.
The broad chilling impact created by the stigmatization of civil society and assemblies leads to further severely restricting the ability of people to participate fully in society, exacerbates inequalities, fosters environments of fear and hostility, increases polarization and erodes trust between authorities and the public.
This hostile atmosphere provides fertile ground for the emergence of the anti-rights movements and rhetoric, and erode democracy.
Its impact is especially deeper for individuals and groups that already experience heightened barriers to exercising their freedoms and are subjected to inequality, marginalization, racism, discrimination and violence because of, among other grounds, their gender, race, ethnicity, religion, age and/ or migration status.
Stigmatization is disseminated by a broad set of actors, including political actors, state officials, and non-state actors, often supported with disinformation and smear campaigns, as well as populist rhetoric by authorities and public figures.
I have found a mutually reinforcing cycle of stigmatization, restrictive laws and repression of civil society and activism. Hostile and stigmatizing rhetoric leads to sweeping restrictions, adoption of restrictive laws, including imposition of excessive regulations, burdensome administrative requirements and heavy sanctions and criminalising associations while cutting off their funding.
These measures further fuel stigmatization and empower actors spreading stigmatizing narratives.
Also, stigmatizing narratives, especially when spread by those in power and amplified by the media, has legitimized repression of activists and peaceful assemblies. Whereas the unjustified heavy-handed law enforcement tactics and criminalization of protesters and activists have led to furthering stigmatization and delegitimizing the legitimate goals of the peaceful assembly.
There are several initiatives to respond and counter harmful narratives against activism, CSOs and assemblies. First, countering anti-rights narratives and developing narratives promoting messages to reinvigorate public support for democracy and human rights is crucial. All the initiatives that are changing the narratives based on hate for messages that are supported in hope need to be multiplied.
Hate is a better transmitter of stigmatization that hope.
Also, taking into account that stigmatization is forcing to silence the dissent, it is important to enhance space for dialogue and inclusion, to promote the valuable and legitimate role of civil society sector, and create a safe space for inclusive participation. When there is room for diversity of voices, silencing is more difficult.
Solidarity and building resilience are keys, to support associations targeted with stigmatizing and hateful rhetoric. Also, measuring the existence and impact of harmful narratives, including information about the long-term chilling effect that these have on the exercise of public freedoms and on other human rights allows the public and opinion-makers to have a better understanding and enable more critical debates.
Among other measures, States should ensure official rhetoric respects and supports fundamental freedoms, avoiding to use narratives and political discourse that discourage, vilify and criminalize civil society and the exercise of the right to protest.
Also, States must condemn and address harmful rhetoric, and promoting alternative narratives as well as an environment of public dialogue and inclusion in decision-making.
Fearing and persecuting dissent drives societies away from the rule of law, democracy and human rights, and claims hundreds of lives every year.
Gina Romero is UN Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association.
