Global Climate Action Progressing, but Speed and Scale Still Lacking

Posted on by admin

Civil Society, Climate Action, Climate Change, Climate Change Finance, Climate Change Justice, Editors’ Choice, Featured, Global, Headlines, Humanitarian Emergencies, Small Island Developing States, Sustainable Development Goals, TerraViva United Nations

Climate Action

Former UN Climate Chief Christiana Figueres praised the role of small island states in maintaining the integrity of international climate agreements but said the world was far behind and said that the decarbonisation of the global economy is by now irreversible with or without the craziness in the United States.

Former Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Christiana Figueres, speaking during a press briefing with the Oxford Climate Journalism Network on March 27. Credit: Alison Kentish/IPS

Former Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Christiana Figueres, speaking during a press briefing with the Oxford Climate Journalism Network on March 27. Credit: Alison Kentish/IPS

Mar 31 2025 (IPS) – 2025 marks the tenth anniversary of the Paris Climate Agreement. One of its chief architects, Christiana Figueres, says the world is heading in the right direction but warns that urgent action is needed to close critical gaps.

The pact, adopted in 2015 by 195 nations, set out to limit global warming to “well below 2°C” above pre-industrial levels, striving for 1.5°C. But in 2024, the world shattered records as the hottest year ever, surpassing that crucial threshold.

Speaking at a press briefing with the Oxford Climate Journalism Network on March 27, Figueres said while technology and investment are advancing, the world is not moving fast enough.

“We’re far behind,” she said. “We have very clear data points of all of the technologies that are exponentially growing on both sides of the market – the supply side as well as the demand – and we can see that all of that is moving, as well as investment. That definitely defines the direction of travel and the decarbonisation of the global economy is by now irreversible with or without the craziness in the United States. What still is not at the level that we should have is speed and scale.”

A co-founder of Global Optimism, an organisation focused on hope and action in the face of climate change, Figueres emphasised the urgency of the crisis while highlighting the global capacity to address it.

While one in five people globally already experience climate impacts daily, and climate-related costs rose to $320 billion last year, investment in clean technology is outpacing fossil fuels, she noted.

“We had last year two times the level of investment into clean technology versus fossil fuels and the prices continue to fall. Every year they fall even more and more. Solar prices last year fell by a whopping 35%. Electric vehicle batteries fell by 20%,” she said.

Figueres also spoke about the disproportionate burden placed on small island nations, which are already importing fossil fuels at the cost of up to 30% of their national budgets. “These islands are importing the poison that is directly threatening their survival,” she argued, stressing the need for renewable energy solutions like wind and hydro to replace fossil fuels.

The former head of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) also praised the role of small island states in maintaining the integrity of international climate agreements. “It’s not the size of the nation but the integrity of their position that matters,” she said, noting how these nations have consistently held larger emitters accountable.

Asked about the Paris Agreement’s architecture, Figueres defended its approach.

“The Paris Agreement is really strange in its legal bindingness. It is legally binding to all countries that have ratified it, but what is binding is the overall trajectory of decarbonisation to get to net zero by 2050. What is not binding is the level of the NDCs which are the nationally determined contributions that every country has to submit every 5 years and be held accountable against that,” she said, likening the agreement’s style to running a marathon, “the goal is clear, but the pace is up to each runner.”

Figueres says the COP process was designed in the early 1990s as a multilateral platform for countries to negotiate agreements aimed at addressing climate change collectively – something that was critical for establishing frameworks like the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement. She stressed that with agreements in place to guide global decarbonisation until 2050, the next phase of climate talks should focus on implementation rather than new negotiations.

“The implementation is mostly on the part of the private sector and the financial sector. Do  they need governments to support them? Absolutely, so what governments need to do is to put regulations, incentives, and tax credits in place to accelerate investment in the sectors that we know are going to address climate change and to give long-term certainty to the private sector so that they can do their planning, but those regulations, those incentives, and those tax breaks are not to be negotiated between countries. They are to be enacted nationally, domestically.”

With COP 30 approaching, Figueres urged countries to take a long-term view in their climate planning. “NDCs should align government and private sector ambitions with the next decade’s possibilities, not just the current technologies,” she said.

As host country Brazil prepares for the 2025 UN Climate Talks, Figueres called for a holistic approach to climate policy, linking energy, industry, and nature. She also cautioned against framing COP 30 as a “last chance”, emphasising that it should be seen as a milestone in a longer journey toward global climate goals.

2025 marks the tenth anniversary of the Paris Climate Agreement. One of its chief architects, Christiana Figueres says the world is heading in the right direction but warns that urgent action is needed to close critical gaps.

The pact, adopted in 2015 by 195 nations, set out to limit global warming to “well below 2°C” above pre-industrial levels, striving for 1.5°C. But in 2024, the world shattered records as the hottest year ever, surpassing that crucial threshold.

Speaking at a press briefing with the Oxford Climate Journalism Network on March 27, Figueres said while technology and investment are advancing, the world is not moving fast enough.

“We’re far behind,” she said. “We have very clear data points of all of the technologies that are exponentially growing on both sides of the market – the supply side as well as the demand – and we can see that all of that is moving, as well as investment. That definitely defines the direction of travel and the decarbonisation of the global economy is by now irreversible with or without the craziness in the United States. What still is not at the level that we should have is speed and scale.”

A co-founder of Global Optimism, an organisation focused on hope and action in the face of climate change, Figueres emphasised the urgency of the crisis while highlighting the global capacity to address it.

While one in five people globally already experience climate impacts daily, and climate-related costs rose to $320 billion last year, investment in clean technology is outpacing fossil fuels, she noted.

“We had last year two times the level of investment into clean technology versus fossil fuels and the prices continue to fall. Every year they fall even more and more. Solar prices last year fell by a whopping 35%. Electric vehicle batteries fell by 20%,” she said.

Figueres also spoke about the disproportionate burden placed on small island nations, which are already importing fossil fuels at the cost of up to 30% of their national budgets. “These islands are importing the poison that is directly threatening their survival,” she argued, stressing the need for renewable energy solutions like wind and hydro to replace fossil fuels.

The former head of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) also praised the role of small island states in maintaining the integrity of international climate agreements. “It’s not the size of the nation but the integrity of their position that matters,” she said, noting how these nations have consistently held larger emitters accountable.

Asked about the Paris Agreement’s architecture, Figueres defended its approach.

“The Paris Agreement is really strange in its legal bindingness. It is legally binding to all countries that have ratified it, but what is binding is the overall trajectory of decarbonisation to get to net zero by 2050. What is not binding is the level of the NDCs, which are the nationally determined contributions that every country has to submit every 5 years and be held accountable against that,” she said, likening the agreement’s style to running a marathon, “the goal is clear, but the pace is up to each runner.”

Figueres says the COP process was designed in the early 1990s as a multilateral platform for countries to negotiate agreements aimed at addressing climate change collectively – something that was critical for establishing frameworks like the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement. She stressed that with agreements in place to guide global decarbonisation until 2050, the next phase of climate talks should focus on implementation rather than new negotiations.

“The implementation is mostly on the part of the private sector and the financial sector. Do  they need governments to support them? Absolutely, so what governments need to do is to put regulations, incentives, and tax credits in place to accelerate investment in the sectors that we know are going to address climate change and to give long-term certainty to the private sector so that they can do their planning, but those regulations, those incentives, and those tax breaks are not to be negotiated between countries. They are to be enacted nationally, domestically.”

With COP 30 approaching, Figueres urged countries to take a long-term view in their climate planning. “NDCs should align government and private sector ambitions with the next decade’s possibilities, not just the current technologies,” she said.

As host country Brazil prepares for the 2025 UN Climate Talks, Figueres called for a holistic approach to climate policy, linking energy, industry, and nature. She also cautioned against framing COP 30 as a “last chance”, emphasising that it should be seen as a milestone in a longer journey toward global climate goals.

IPS UN Bureau Report

  Source

‘Student Protests Have Sparked Solidarity, Empathy and a Renewed Belief in Collective Action’

Posted on by admin

Civil Society, Crime & Justice, Education, Europe, Featured, Headlines, Human Rights, Press Freedom, TerraViva United Nations

Mar 31 2025 (IPS) –  
CIVICUS discusses recent protests in Serbia with Alma Mustajbašić, researcher at Civic Initiatives, a Serbian civil society organisation that advocates for democracy, human rights and citizen engagement.

Alma Mustajbašić

Following the deaths of 15 people in the collapse of the roof of a newly reconstructed railway station in November 2014, student-led protests have swept across Serbia, uniting diverse social groups against governance failures and government corruption. Despite harsh crackdowns including arrests and violence, the movement has employed direct action and effective social media strategies to demand systemic reforms. The movement has even made a rare impact in rural areas through long protest marches, breaking the government-imposed climate of fear and inspiring renewed political engagement.

What triggered the current protests?

Protests started following a tragedy that occurred in Novi Sad, Serbia’s second-largest city, on 1 November last year. That day, the canopy of a newly reconstructed railway station collapsed, killing 15 people. The station had already had two official inaugurations, one in 2022, attended by President Aleksandar Vučić, and another in 2024, in the presence of other high-ranking officials.

The reconstruction contracts, signed with a consortium of Chinese companies, were kept secret, leading many to blame corruption for the collapse. People’s immediate reaction was to protest, holding 15-minute commemorative traffic blockades under the slogan ‘Serbia must stop’, to pressure the authorities to identify and punish those responsible for the tragedy.

At one of the commemorative gatherings outside the Faculty of Dramatic Arts in the capital, Belgrade, protesters including students and professors were attacked by ruling party members and supporters. This was the immediate reason that the students of this faculty, and then from other state universities and some private ones, decided to blockade their institutions and suspend classes until their demands were met. They demanded the publication of all documents related to the station’s reconstruction, which still remained confidential, the dismissal of charges against those arrested and detained during the protests, the identification, prosecution and removal from public office of those responsible for the attacks on students and other protesters, and a 20 per cent increase in the higher education budget.

The tragedy in Novi Sad was a tipping point, but public frustration had been building up for years. Deep-seated corruption, secretive government contracts and ruling party-based recruitment practices have eroded trust in public institutions. With biased media, unfree institutions, unresolved government affairs and consistently unfair elections, many people feel voiceless. The daily targeting of political opponents and Vučić’s increasingly repressive rule only add to the anger.

How has the protest movement evolved?

The Novi Sad station collapse sparked a powerful student movement that united diverse parts of society, quickly gaining support from cultural figures, educators, farmers, industry workers and lawyers. For months, there have been protests almost every day, growing in size and intensity, with tens of thousands participating in road blockades, silent vigils and long marches across Serbia.

In early March, hundreds blockaded the public broadcaster, Radio Television of Serbia, in Belgrade, accusing it of biased coverage favouring Vučić. Vučić had appeared on the main news bulletin condemning the movement, accusing protesters of carrying out a ‘colour revolution’ and being supported from abroad and warning they could ‘end up behind bars’. Clashes erupted as riot police used batons in an attempt to disperse the crowd.

The government has cracked down hard. It has arrested students and orchestrated violent attacks, including serious assaults on female students. There have been reports of phone hacking and smear campaigns in pro-government media. People who support the protests, including teachers and civil society organisations, have also faced intimidation and retaliation.

One of the latest in a series of incidents happened at a protest held in Belgrade on 15 March, which was the largest in decades, with several hundred thousand people joining, according to independent observers. The 15-minute silence was broken, according to eyewitnesses, by a loud noise and a feeling of heat, which led to a stampede. More than 3,000 people had symptoms that included nausea, headaches, rapid heartbeat, hearing loss, anxiety, panic, tremors, disorientation and a sense of losing control. The authorities deny they used a sound cannon against protesters, although one such device was photographed on a police vehicle close to the protest site.

How do these protests compare to previous movements?

Serbia has a long history of civic movements, from student protests in the 1990s to the ‘1 of 5 Million’ protests following an attack on an opposition leader in 2018 and 2023 ‘Serbia Against Violence’ protests following two mass shootings. But these protests have lasted much longer and have received support from wider social groups.

The 2024 student movement is also different from previous ones in several ways. It uses direct democracy, discussing plans and making decisions in plenary meetings. Each faculty has working groups that manage accommodation, logistics, media communication, security and overall coordination. There are no formal leaders. The movement operates as a collective.

As part of Generation Z, protesters use social media effectively, blending creativity and humour to reach a broad audience, which is crucial in a country where media freedom is limited. Their messaging also reaches beyond Serbia’s borders.

This student movement is also different in that its demands are not focused on changing the government for an alternative political option. Protesting students refuse to align with opposition political parties and instead seek to strengthen cooperation with trade unions. They want deeper systemic changes to establish the rule of law and independent institutions. These are calls for profound social change in a society burdened by corruption.

Significant judicial and political reforms will be needed to respond to students’ demands. This won’t be easy, but the momentum suggests people are ready to fight for it.

What are the biggest obstacles to change?

There are numerous obstacles. The biggest are corruption, the lack of independent institutions and the absence of conditions for free and fair elections.

Right now, it’s hard to predict where these protests will lead. Just a few months ago, a movement of this scale, led by young people, seemed unlikely. Yet students have managed to break the climate of fear imposed by the regime and inspire more people to engage in political life.

Students have held long protest marches, walking hundreds of kilometres to support mass demonstrations in other cities and stopping in small towns and villages along the way, reassuring people in rural areas that they are not forgotten. They’ve sparked solidarity, empathy and a renewed belief in collective action. Their determination has sent a powerful message: perseverance can lead to real change.

GET IN TOUCH
Website
Email
Facebook
Instagram
Twitter
YouTube

SEE ALSO
Serbia: ‘We live in a system that’s allergic to pluralism, with a government hostile to critical voices’ CIVICUS Lens | Interview with Tamara Branković 02.Jul.2024
Serbia’s suspicious election CIVICUS Lens 26.Jan.2024
Serbia: ‘People are concerned that a critical tool to hold political elites accountable is being taken away’ CIVICUS Lens | Interview with Raša Nedeljkov 19.Jan.2024

  Source

The Giant Plastic Tap: How art fights plastic pollution

Posted on by admin

Aid, Arts, Civil Society, Climate Action, Climate Change, Development & Aid, Economy & Trade, Editors’ Choice, Environment, Featured, Headlines, Sustainable Development Goals, TerraViva United Nations

Arts

The Giant Plastic Tap installation by Canadian artist Benjamin Von Wong.

The Giant Plastic Tap installation by Canadian artist Benjamin Von Wong.

NEW DELHI, Mar 28 2025 (IPS) – “The size of the faucet highlights the magnitude of the problem. It makes the problem impossible to ignore. We’re used to throwing things ‘away’—but when we’re confronted with what happens when ‘away’ is not an option, I think it creates an emotional wake-up call,” says Benjamin Von Wong.

The 39-year-old Canadian artist and activist is referring to his inspiration behind The Giant Plastic Tap installation, which created a buzz in the art world, highlighting the problem of plastic pollution.

Wong, known for his environmental art installations and hyper-realist art style, created the Giant Plastic Tap that features an oversized faucet seemingly floating in mid-air while spewing plastic waste, serving as a striking metaphor for the world’s urgent need to address plastic production at its source.

He explains, “I wanted to bring the phrase ‘Turn off the plastic tap’ to life in a tangible way. I adapted the concept of the ‘floating fountain’ but distorted it with plastic—to emphasize the urgency of tackling the problem at its source by reducing plastic production, rather than relying solely on downstream solutions like recycling and beach cleanups.”

Reportedly, the global effects of plastic pollution are becoming more evident, highlighting the urgent need for collective action. Scientific studies and policy changes are essential but it is also crucial to acknowledge the influence of art in raising awareness and inspiring people to act.

Art has a unique power to evoke emotions, ignite conversations, and build a deep connection between individuals and the environment.

In the fight against plastic pollution, one art installation has become a powerful symbol of change, with Wong playing an important role.

Plastic pollution is one of the biggest crises of this generation.

The latest study, by charity EA Earth Action and released last year, revealed that more than a third of plastic waste will be improperly handled at the end of its lifecycle. This equates to 68.6 million tonnes of plastic, translating to an average of 28kg of plastic waste per person worldwide. In 2024, approximately 220 million tonnes of plastic waste were generated, marking a 7.11 percent increase since 2021.

Canadian artist Benjamin Von Wong.

Canadian artist Benjamin Von Wong.

Art installed so far

Von Wong, who shifted from mining engineering to environmental activism through art, has created four large-scale faucet installations, showcased at venues including Art Basel, the United Nations Environment Assembly 5.2 in Nairobi (2022), and the United Nations Ocean Conference.

“We’ve installed them in over a dozen locations—but even more exciting is that hundreds of cardboard replicas have been made worldwide,” Wong says.

Wong reflects, “I’m not sure how you measure the impact of art, but I think the fact that this installation has become a symbol for the importance of a global plastic treaty is probably the biggest achievement.”

The Giant Plastic Tap has been featured at previous INC (Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee for the plastic treaty) sessions. However, its absence was notably felt during the INC-5 conference in Busan, South Korea.

Wong says, “I did my best to have the tap installation placed in Busan, but it wasn’t allowed. Instead, the ‘beached whale’ was placed on the lawns of BEXCO, the exhibition center that hosted the event last year.” He adds, “Despite reaching out over six months in advance to the operations team, the delegation, and securing local partners with independent funding, we were met with silence.”

Interestingly, INC-5 failed to reach a consensus on the global plastic treaty due to disagreements over national interests, industry influence, financial and technical support, and enforcement mechanisms.

Despite current challenges in global plastic treaty negotiations, including the presence of fossil fuel lobbyists and the constraints of consensus-based decision-making, Artist Wong remains optimistic about the future. “I’m certain we will find a way forward,” he asserts, pointing to the numerous dedicated individuals and organizations working to advance the treaty.

Meanwhile, after the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee decided to postpone the fifth session, the second part of the fifth session (INC-5.2) is scheduled to take place from 5 to 14 August 2025 at the Palais des Nations in Geneva, Switzerland.

Involving locals

Wong involved the local communities to complete the installation at UNEA 5.2 in Nairobi. The project collaborated with the Human Needs Project to collect three tons of plastic from the Kibera slums. The initiative employed over 80 local women to clean and organize the plastic, ensuring their voices were heard by world leaders. “We also fundraised to support the creation of a more local waste management system,” he adds.

The installation has achieved significant success in its mission to influence public perception. Viewers consistently grasp the fundamental message about the need to stop plastic pollution, and the installation’s visual impact helps transform an intellectual discussion into an emotional experience. Its symbolism has become particularly significant in the context of the global plastic treaty discussions.

Lastly, can art play a pivotal role in driving real-world change? To this Wong draws a compelling parallel: “What is the value of a monument like the Statue of Liberty? How would you measure it?”

The success of The Giant Plastic Tap suggests that art remains a powerful catalyst for environmental awareness and social change, particularly when it transforms complex global issues into visceral, emotional experiences that resonate across cultural and linguistic barriers.

IPS UN Bureau Report

  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

How to Turn the Tide: Resisting the Global Assault on Gender Rights

Posted on by admin

Civil Society, Crime & Justice, Education, Featured, Gender, Gender Identity, Global, Headlines, Human Rights, LGBTQ, TerraViva United Nations, Women’s Health

Opinion

Credit: Amanda Perobelli/Reuters via Gallo Images

MONTEVIDEO, Uruguay, Mar 27 2025 (IPS) – This year’s session of the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women (CSW69), the world’s leading forum for advancing gender equality, confronted unprecedented challenges. With Saudi Arabia in the chair and anti-rights voices growing increasingly influential in the forum, the struggle to hold onto international commitments on gender equality intensified dramatically. On 8 March, International Women’s Day mobilisations also took on added urgency, with demonstrations from Istanbul to Buenos Aires focusing on resisting the multiple manifestations of gender rights regression being felt in communities worldwide.

CIVICUS’s 2025 State of Civil Society Report shows that hard-won women’s and LGBTQI+ rights are at risk, challenged by coordinated anti-rights movements that use gender as a political wedge issue. But it also provides abundant evidence that civil society is rising to the challenge.

Global regression

They call it ‘child protection’ in Russia, ‘family values’ in several Eastern European countries, ‘religious freedom’ in the USA, and ‘African traditions’ across the continent. The terminology shifts, but the objective is the same: halting progress towards gender equality and dismantling rights. Of course, it isn’t about differences in cultural values – it’s an orchestrated political strategy.

In Afghanistan, the Taliban’s system of gender apartheid has reached its brutal endpoint: women are effectively imprisoned in their homes, barred from education, work and public life, their voices literally silenced by prohibitions on singing or talking in public. Iranian authorities have gone to extreme lengths to maintain control over women’s bodies. In Iraq, lawmakers are considering lowering the minimum marriage age to just nine years old.

These extreme examples exist along a spectrum that includes Ghana’s parliament criminalising same-sex relations, Russia expanding ‘propaganda’ laws to prohibit any positive portrayal of LGBTQI+ identities, and Georgia – a country that says it wants to join the European Union – adopting Russian-style legislation restricting LGBTQI+ organisations under the cynical framing of ‘protecting minors’.

In the USA, Trump-appointed justices overturned constitutional abortion protections, triggering restrictions across numerous states. The second Trump administration has now reinstated the global gag rule, restricting international funding for organisations providing reproductive healthcare. The Guttmacher Institute projects this will deny 11.7 million women access to contraception, potentially causing 4.2 million unintended pregnancies and over 8,300 maternal deaths.

A coordinated transnational movement

Across Africa, there’s an intensifying wave of anti-LGBTQI+ legislation, often driven by political opportunism. Mali’s military junta passed a law criminalising homosexuality as part of its broader crackdown on rights. Ghana’s parliament passed a draconian ‘anti-LGBTQI+ bill’, while Uganda’s Constitutional Court upheld the country’s harsh Anti-Homosexuality Act. In Kenya, a Family Protection Bill that would outlaw LGBTQI+ advocacy remains before parliament.

As recently seen at CSW, the ongoing backlash is transnational in nature. Anti-rights forces share tactics, funding and messaging across borders, with conservative foundations from the USA promoting restrictive legislation in Africa and Russian ideologues exporting their playbook to former Soviet states and beyond. US evangelical organisations and conservative think-tanks are a particularly influential source of anti-rights narratives and funding: they’ve funnelled millions of dollars into campaigns against reproductive rights and LGBTQI+ equality worldwide, while providing intellectual frameworks and legal strategies for adaption to local contexts from Poland to Uganda.

Victories against the odds

Against this daunting backdrop, civil society continues achieving remarkable victories through strategic resistance and persistence. In 2024, Thailand became Southeast Asia’s first country to legalise same-sex marriage, while Greece broke new ground as the first majority Orthodox Christian country to do so. France enshrined abortion rights in its constitution, creating a powerful bulwark against future threats.

A regional trend continued in the Caribbean, with civil society litigation successfully overturning colonial-era laws that criminalised homosexuality in Dominica. Colombia and Sierra Leone banned child marriage, while women’s rights groups in The Gambia defeated a bill that would have decriminalised female genital mutilation.

These successes share common elements: they’re the result of sustained, multi-year advocacy campaigns combining legal challenges, community mobilisation, strategic communications and international solidarity.

Take Thailand’s marriage equality victory. Success came partly through the campaign’s intersection with the youth-led democracy movement, which connected LGBTQI+ rights to broader aspirations for a fairer society. In Kenya, despite harsh anti-LGBTQI+ rhetoric from political leaders, strategic litigation by civil society secured a court ruling preventing incitement to violence against LGBTQI+ people.

Even in the most repressive contexts, activists find ways to resist. Afghan women, denied basic rights to education and movement, have developed underground schools and created subtle forms of civil disobedience that maintain pressure without risking their lives. Along with their Iranian sisters, they continue to campaign for gender apartheid to be recognised as a crime under international law.

The path forward: intersectionality and solidarity

Progress in realising rights is neither linear nor inevitable. Each advance triggers opposition, so every victory needs defence. To solidify and last, legal changes must be accompanied by social transformation – which is why civil society complements policy advocacy with public education, community organising and cultural engagement.

Advocacy is most effective when it embraces intersectionality, recognising how gender, sexuality, class, race, disability and migration status create overlapping forms of exclusion that need integrated responses. Feminist movements are increasingly centring the experiences of Black women, Indigenous women, women with disabilities and trans women.

Even where progress can feel elusive, civil society is playing a crucial role in keeping hope alive. Organisations defending women’s and LGBTQI+ rights are maintaining spaces where people are allowed to be their true selves, providing support services that nobody else will provide, documenting violations that would otherwise go unrecorded, keeping up the pressure on the authorities and building solidarity networks that sustain activists through difficult times.

International support for these efforts has never been more important. The USAID funding freeze highlights a troubling trend of shrinking resources for gender rights defenders at precisely the moment they’re needed most. This makes diversifying funding sources an urgent priority, with feminist philanthropists, progressive foundations and governments committed to gender equality needing to step up. More innovative funding mechanisms are required to rapidly respond to emergencies while sustaining the long-term work of movement building. Individuals have power: anyone can contribute directly to frontline organisations, amplify their voices on social media, challenge regressive narratives in their communities and demand that elected representatives prioritise gender equality domestically and in foreign policy. In the global struggle for fundamental rights, no one should be a spectator. The time for solidarity is now.

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

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

  Source

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

Posted on by admin

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

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

Perhaps with more to come.

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

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

And political outrage is fast becoming the norm.

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

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

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

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

What’s next?

The abrogation of the 1947 US-UN Headquarters Agreement?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IPS UN Bureau Report

  Source