May 29 2025 (IPS) – CIVICUS discusses the devastating impact of palm oil extraction in West Papua with Tigor Hutapea, legal representative of Pusaka Bentala Rakyat, an organisation campaigning for Indigenous Papuan people’s rights to manage their customary lands and forests.
Tigor Hutapea
In West Papua, Indigenous communities are boycotting palm oil products, accusing major corporations of profiting from environmental devastation and human rights abuses. Beyond environmental damage, Indigenous leaders are fighting what they describe as an existential threat to their cultural survival. Large-scale deforestation has destroyed ancestral lands and livelihoods, with Indonesian authorities enabling this destruction by issuing permits on contested Indigenous territories. Local activists characterise this situation as ecocide and are building international coalitions to hold companies and government officials accountable.
What are the problems with palm oil?
In West Papua, one of the world’s richest biodiversity centres, oil palm plantation expansion is causing what we call ecocide. By 2019, the government had issued permits for plantations covering 1.57 million hectares of Indigenous forest land to 58 major companies, all without the free, prior and informed consent of affected communities.
The environmental damage is already devastating, despite only 15 per cent of the permitted area having been developed so far. Palm oil plantations have fundamentally altered water systems in regions such as Merauke, causing the Bian, Kumbe and Maro rivers to overflow during rainy seasons because plantations cannot absorb heavy rainfall. Indigenous communities have lost access to forests that provided food and medicine and sustained cultural practices, while monoculture crops have replaced biodiverse ecosystems, leading to the disappearance of endemic animal species.
How are authorities circumventing legal protections?
There’s unmistakable collusion between government officials and palm oil companies. In 2023, we supported the Awyu Indigenous people in a landmark legal case against a Malaysian-owned company. The court found the government had issued permits without community consent, directly violating West Papua’s special autonomy laws that require Indigenous approval for land use changes.
These actions contravene national regulations and international law, including the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which guarantees the right to free, prior and informed consent. Yet despite clear legal violations, authorities continue defending these projects by citing tax revenue and economic growth. They are clearly prioritising corporate profits over Indigenous rights and environmental protection.
The government’s response to opposition is particularly troubling. There is a systematic pattern of human rights violations against people defending their lands. When communities protest against developments, they face arbitrary arrests, police intimidation and violence. Police frequently disperse demonstrations by force, and community leaders are threatened with imprisonment or falsely accused of disrupting development. In some cases, they are labelled as separatists or anti-government to delegitimise their activism and justify repression.
What tactics are proving effective for civil society?
Indigenous communities are employing both traditional and modern resistance approaches. Many communities have performed customary rituals to symbolically reject plantations, imposing cultural sanctions that carry significant spiritual weight in their societies. Simultaneously, they’re engaging with legal systems to challenge permit violations.
Civil society organisations like ours support these efforts through environmental impact assessments, legal advocacy and public awareness campaigns. This multi-pronged approach has gained significant traction: in 2023, our Change.org petition gathered 258,178 signatures, while the #AllEyesOnPapua social media campaign went viral, demonstrating growing international concern.
Despite these successes, we face an uphill battle. The government continues pushing ahead with new agribusiness plans, including sugarcane and rice plantations covering over two million additional hectares of forest. This threatens further environmental destruction and Indigenous rights violations. Supporters of our movement are increasingly highlighting the global climate implications of continued deforestation in this critical carbon sink region.
What specific international actions would help protect West Papua?
Consumer power represents one of our strongest allies. International consumers can pressure their governments to enforce laws that prevent the import of products linked to human rights abuses and deforestation. They should also demand companies divest from harmful plantation projects that violate Indigenous rights.
At the diplomatic level, we need consistent international pressure on Indonesia to halt large-scale agribusiness expansion in West Papua and uphold Indigenous rights as defined in national and international laws. Foreign governments with trade relationships must make human rights and environmental protection central to their engagement with Indonesia, not peripheral concerns. Without concerted international action, West Papua’s irreplaceable forests and the Indigenous communities who have sustainably managed them for generations face an existential threat. This isn’t just a local issue: the destruction of one of the world’s most biodiverse regions affects us all.
GENEVA / NEW YORK, May 29 2025 (IPS) – Rumors circulating at UN Headquarters suggest there is little appetite for ambition at the Second World Summit for Social Development, set to take place in Doha on 4-6 November 2025. Diplomats and insiders whisper of “summit fatigue” after a packed calendar of global gatherings—the 2023 SDG Summit, the 2024 Summit of the Future, and the upcoming June 2025 Fourth International Conference on Financing for Development. Compounding this fatigue is the chilling rise of anti-rights rhetoric and political resistance from some governments, casting a shadow over multilateral efforts. For some, just getting any multilateral agreement is good enough. As a result, the Zero Draft of the Social Summit Political Declaration lacks the ambition required to confront the multiple social crises our world faces.
Isabel Ortiz
Many have raised the alarm: we need more than vague recommitments—we need a strong plan to bring people back to the center of the policy agenda. The stakes could not be higher. The world has changed dramatically since the historic 1995 first Social Summit in Copenhagen. Then, world leaders recognized the need for human-centered development. Today, the urgency has grown exponentially in our fractured and volatile world. People face multiple overlapping crises — a post pandemic poly-crisis, a cost-of-living crisis pushing millions into poverty, corporate welfare prioritized over people’s welfare, a rapid erosion of democracy leading to staggering disparities, an escalating climate emergency, a prolonged jobs crisis that is poised to dramatically worsen by the use of artificial intelligence (AI). Trust in governments and multilateral institutions is eroding, social discontent and protests are multiplying, and inequalities—within and between countries—have reached grotesque levels. A timid declaration would be a betrayal of the people who look to the United Nations as a beacon of fairness and human dignity.
The Summit is a once-in-a-generation opportunity for governments and the UN to remedy the grievous social malaise and lead a global recommitment to social justice and equity. For this, the Social Summit Declaration must offer more than aspirational language; it must define binding action with explicit commitments to build societies that work for everyone and bring prosperity for all, in areas such as:
• Reducing income and wealth inequalities, which deeply erode social cohesion, democratic governance, and sustainable development;
Odile Frank
• Making gender justice a pillar of the Declaration: a Social Summit that fails to prioritize gender equality will fail half of the world population and fail in its mission to deliver on human rights, dignity, and sustainable development; • Delivering universal, quality public services by committing to publicly funded and delivered systems, with a clear focus on protecting public sector workers and eliminating barriers to quality services, in the context of robust public investment, grounded in fairer financing, reversing austerity cuts and aid cuts; • Ringfencing social development from budget cuts, privatization and blended finance, reversing the harmful impacts of austerity cuts, privatization/PPPs and commodification of public services, particularly their negative impact on affordability, accessibility, quality and equity of public services; • Addressing rising income precarity by investing in decent work with labor rights/standards and universal social protection systems and floors; • Regulating and taxing technology equitably. While AI is generating unprecedented private wealth, it is estimated that 40% of jobs could be lost to AI by 2030, with administrative roles (predominantly held by women) facing nearly triple the risk of displacement; governments need to redress the negative social impacts of IA such as job displacement and wealth concentration, providing adequate social protection measures for those affected by job losses and taxation of AI-driven profits to redistribute benefits back to societies;
Gabriele Koehler
• Promoting a care economy supportive of women that prioritizes well-being over GDP growth; • Moving beyond GDP growth, recognizing the limitations of growth-centric paradigms and committing to policies that promote ecological sustainability and equitable development; • Systematically assessing the social impacts and distributional effects of economic policies, including disaggregated data by, at least, gender and income group; if analysis reveals that the majority of people are not the primary beneficiaries or that social outcomes and human rights are undermined, policies must be revised to ensure equitable development; • Ensuring fair and sustainable resource mobilization, committing to progressive taxation, eliminating/reducing illegitimate debt, fighting illicit financial flows, collecting adequate social security contributions from corporations, and other feasible financing options; • Pushing back against anti-rights and anti-gender movements, reaffirming global commitments to human rights and democracy.
Us make this summit the moment we choose dignity and social justice over apathy and mediocrity. We know we must strive for more ambitious commitments. The 2025 World Social Summit must not be a missed opportunity.
Isabel Ortiz, Director, Global Social Justice, was Director at the International Labor Organization (ILO) and UNICEF, and a senior official at the UN and the Asian Development Bank.
Odile Frank, Executive Secretary, Global Social Justice, was Director, Social Integration at the UN and senior official at the OECD, ILO and the World Health Organization (WHO).
Gabriele Koehler, Board Member of Global Social Justice and of Women Engage for a Common Future (WECF), was a senior official at UN-ESCAP, UNCTAD, UNDP and UNICEF.
Li Junhua, head of the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA) and the Secretary-General, Jérôme Bonnafont, Permanent Representative of France to the UN and Costa Rican Ambassador Maritza Chan Valverde during a press conference ahead of the UN Ocean Conference in Nice: Credit: Twitter
UNITED NATIONS, May 28 2025 (IPS) – A greater understanding and appreciation of the world’s oceans is needed to protect them. As the global community prepares to convene for the ocean conference, they must also prepare to invest in scientific efforts and education that will bolster their joint efforts.
France and Costa Rica will co-host the 3rd United Nations Ocean Conference (UNOC3) in Nice, France, from June 9-13. Over the course of the week, governments, the private sector, intergovernmental groups, and non-governmental groups, among others, will convene over the urgent actions that need to be taken to promote the conservation and sustainable use of the oceans.
This year’s conference will be the first to take place during the UN Decade of Ocean Science for Sustainable Development (2021-2030), which brings together stakeholders in which the UN and its partners will oversee the actions that need to be taken to protect the oceans’ unique ecosystems and biodiversity and how to promote greater awareness and research into ocean sciences and how to better protect them.
UNESCO’s Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC) oversees and tracks the progress of the UN Ocean Decade, which brings together the global ocean community on the principles of understanding, educating, and protecting the oceans.
There will be an emphasis on strengthening the data-collection capacities in the global system for observing the ocean. Data scarcity and limitations in collection methods have meant that organizations have challenges grasping the full scope of the ocean and the changes they face in the wake of climate change.
Julian Barbiere, UNESCO’s Head of Marine Policy, told reporters that science-based discussions will be at the core of UNOC. For UNESCO, there will be discussions over how to translate scientific facts into tangible climate actions. This includes scaling up the current efforts at ocean-floor mapping. At present, only 26.1 percent of the seafloor has been mapped out by modern standards, with the goal to have 100 percent of the seafloor mapped out by 2030.
Seaweed is grown or farmed in the shallow waters of the Indian Ocean, off Wasini Island, Kenya, with plants tied to ropes in the water. Credit: Anthony Onyango / Climate Visuals
Joanna Post, head of the IOC’s Ocean Observations and Services, remarked that there is a “real need for recognition” of the critical functions that the system performs, such as in monitoring weather conditions, mapping the ocean floor, maritime security, and disaster risk management. She announced a new initiative that would mobilize at least 10,000 commercial and research ships to collect data and measure the ocean. Commercial and research ship vessels play a key role in tracking and collecting data on the oceans, which Post emphasized must be shared across global channels.
UNESCO’s agenda for this forum also includes encouraging stakeholders to invest in and strengthen global education efforts on the ocean. “Education is key if we want to have a new generation that is aware of the importance of the ocean system,” said Francesca Santoro, a senior programme officer in UNESCO, leading the Ocean Literacy office.
Santoro stressed that education is not limited to students and young people; private investors should also be more aware of the importance of investing in the oceans.
UNESCO aims to continue expanding the networks of schools and educators that incorporate ocean literacy into their curricula, especially at the national level. Ocean literacy emphasizes the importance of the ocean for students, educators, and local communities within multiple contexts.
One such programme is the SEA BEYOND initiative, in partnership with the Prada Group, which provides training and lessons to over 20,000 students in over 50 countries. Under that initiative, a new multi-partner trust fund will be launched at UNOC3 on June 9, which will be used to support projects and programs that work toward ocean education and preserving ocean culture. As Santoro noted, “For many people and local communities, the main entry point to start interest in the oceans… is in [identifying] what UNESCO calls ‘intangible cultural heritage.’”
Human activity, including pollution, “directly threatens” the health of the ocean, according to Henrik Enevoldsen from UNESCO-IOC’s Centre of Ocean Science.
He announced the development of a new global assessment, led by UNESCO and the UN Environment Programme (UNEP), on marine pollution, to be launched on June 12. This would be a “major leap forward,” Enevoldsen remarked, adding that this assessment would be the first of its kind that provided a global overview of ocean pollution.
The Pan-African congresses Every year African countries commemorate Africa Day or Africa Freedom Day which is broadly in honour of the founding of the Organisation of African Unity (OAU) established on 25th May 1963 in the Ethiopian capital city Addis Ababa. In the year 2001, Zambia had the rare privilege to host the last OAU Summit held at Mulungushi International Conference Centre chaired by Second Republican President Frederick TJ Chiluba. It was also the last year of President Chiluba as head of state. His successor Levy Mwanswasa was to handover the instruments of chairmanship to South Africa’s Second Black President Thabo Mvuyelwa Mbeki. It was Mbeki, an intellectual urbane and strong proponent and advocate of Africa Renaissance who became the chairperson of the African Union (AU) which supplanted the aged OAU in 2002. The OAU founder leaders and their successors had done their very best to ensure that the last three countries to attain political freedom in Black Africa namely Zimbabwe (April 1980), Namibia (January 1990) and South Africa (May 1994) got their freedom under majority rule.
The OAU was a product of the ideals of Pan-Africanism championed by great black enthusiastic political warriors such as Edward Wilmot Blyden a preacher and scholar of Liberia, Henry Sylvester Williams, Edward W. Burgardt Dubois, William Marcus Garvey and many others of African descent domiciled in the West Indies and the United States of America. Sylvester Williams, a lawyer and historian from Trinidad was the first person to use the term ‘Pan-Africanism and the first to organize and convene a Pan-African congress in 1900 in London. Dr Williams had extended invitations the men of African descent living in Europe to discuss the evils of white colonialism and white dominance over black peoples, racial prejudice, and the brutal treatment of black people in South Africa (Amate, 1986:34). The conference had to discuss the future of Africa and the international standing of the only three black states existing in the world at that time Haiti, Ethiopia and Liberia. Off the agenda was the pressing question of independence and Burgardt Dubois as a participant took an opportunity to introduce it into the key areas of the discussions and to persuade the congress to to call Britain, the largest colonial power and others with colonies across Africa and the Caribbean. Dubois emphasized on freedom and the right to govern for black people in the colonies of Africa and the West Indies with a deep sense of urgency.
Sylvester Williams died shortly after the first congress he had convened but the work he had pioneered did not go to the grave with him. Dubois took over from where his colleague had left and convened a series of five Pan-African congresses. He meritoriously carried the name ‘Father of Pan-Africanism. He was a practical and competent journalist who used the pen mightily to drive points home that Africa had come of age and needed no white government on the continent. He built up and administered a chain of newspapers which incessantly called for the granting of human rights to all black people treated like lifeless objects by inhuman extremist white people in the Americas, the West Indies and Africa.
Dubois organised congresses in the years 1919 (Paris); 1921 (London); 1923 (two sessions in succession in London and Lisbon); 1927 (New York); and the last one at the end of the Second World War in October 1945 which took place in Manchester, England. Dubois was 73 in 1945 and his vibrancy, radiancy and steam were on the verge of extinction. He remained a mobile spirit behind the influence, effectiveness and unwavering determination to arouse the consciousness of Black Africa to fight racism and colonial rule. The African-Americans and West Indian leaders who had convened the earlier congresses had fallen into the background as aged, ailing and physically weak champions and pacesetters of Pan-Africanism. Time was opportune to hand over the batons to a new breed of young Pan-Africanists. The Manchester Pan-African Congress had a new team of dynamic and strong young leaders such as Kwame Nkrumah from Ghana; Namdi Azikiwe, S.L. Akintola and Magnus Williams from Nigeria; Peter Abrahams from South Africa; Wallace Johnson from Sierra Leone; and Jomo Kenyatta (Johnston Kamau) from Kenya. Compared to the first batch of Pan-Africanists who had convened the first four congresses, the 1945 congress organisers were radical and militant in their pronouncements on how the pressing issues facing Africa were to be addressed and redressed (Amate, 1986:36). The Manchester Group resoundily declared that all the peoples of Africa and African descent everywhere should be emancipated forthwith from all diabolical and inhuman forms of inhibiting legislation and influences and be reunited with one another.
In Anglophone Africa emerged Pan-African leaders such as Abubakar Tafawa Balewa, Obafemi Awolowo and Benjamin Namdi Azikiwe of Nigeria; Kwame Nkrumah, Joseph Boakye Danquah and Kofi Busia of Ghana; Julius K. Nyerere of Tanganyika (now part of Tanzania with Zanzibar); Jaramogi Oginga Odinga, Thomas Joseph Mboya and Peter Mbiyu Koinange from Kenya; Apollo Milton Obote and Paulo Muwanga from Uganda; Joshua Nkomo, Robert Mugabe; Simon Mzenda, Josia Chinamano, Ndabaningi Sithole and Nathan Shamuyarira from Southern Rhodesia now Zimbabwe; Kenneth D. Kaunda, Harry M. Nkumbula, Simon M. Kapwepwe, Sikota Wina, Robinson Nabulyato, Munukayumbwa Sipalo, Nalumino Mundia and Hyden Dinguswayo Banda from Northern Rhodesia now Zambia; Kanyama Chiume, Orton Chirwa, Dunduza Chisiza, Henry Masauko Chipembere Chipembere and Yatuta Chisiza from Malawi; and Nelson Mandela, Oliver Tambo, Walter Sisulu, Govan Archibald Mbeki, Anthony Lembede, Robert Sobukwe, and Andrew Mlangeni from South Africa. Francophone Africa had more black leaders who pandered to the whims, caprices and manipulation of the French and Belgians. It had more of inveterate malleable opportunists and culturally colonised, aristocratic elite leaders such as Felix Houphuet-Boigny of Ivory Coast, Leopold Sedar Senghor (credited with the philosophy of negritude), Joseph Mobutu (who became a personality cult after the Belgians in collusion with him and Joseph Kasavubu brutally assassinated Patrice Lumumba who was a radical Pan-Africanist upon him being elected Prime Minister of Congo-Kinshasa) and Gnassimbe Eyadema who killed killed the radical Pan-Africanist Gilchrist Olympio in Togo. Benard Albert Bongo in Gabon who later discarded Christian names and named himself Omar Bongo after being converted to Islam was another great lackey of the French government in Paris in the late 1969s. So was his son-in-law Denis Sassou-Nguesso of Congo Brazzaville. The most radical Pan-Africanist in Francophone Africa with a fundamentalist disposition was Ahmed Sekou Tourre of Guinea in West Africa who refused to truckle to the dictates of the French when he told them: ” We prefer poverty in liberty to riches in slavery”. The French had succeeded in wooing a good number of presidents in Francophone Africa who became part of the French Community of nations but Sekou Tourre flatly and roundly rejected their overtures to submit his country to the enclave of puppet states of the French.
What was the common vision of the Pan-Africanists?
Pan-Africanists from the outset envisioned a united Africa hermetically sealed with people of African descent in the United States, the Caribbean and other parts of the world. They advocated a discovery for recovery of African black pride, sense of humanity and economic liberation from Western manipulation which bound millions of black people to both physical and mental servitude. The patriarchs of Pan-Africanism wanted an economically, politically, socially and ideologically free Africa with total dependence on its own resources and not perpetually bound to the Portuguese, British, French, Belgians, Germany, Spanish or Italian colonialists. A united Africa was their battle cry. Rodney (1988:135) asserts that in the centuries before colonial rule, Europe had augmented its economic capacity in leaps and bounds while Africa was almost static. The Europeans had displaced and dispossessed Africa of her human resources and the slave labour dislocated from Africa and shipped in chains to America and the Caribbeans provided hard labour services to the slave owners and the European governments which paid them absolutely nothing. Economies in Europe and Americas prospered and the continent stagnated and fell below zero in the long run. The advent of both slave traders and colonial masters afterwards brutally decimated the peasantry and exploited the black people individually sold as slaves and forcefully taken to Europe. The great social evils perpetuated and perpetrated by the Europeans in collusion left so many vestiges of dehumanization, suppression, exploitation and oppression. The evils are still scars on the beautiful face of Africa which will always remind us of the unpardonable acts of slavery and colonial rule. The divide and rule machinations employed by the colonialists made Africa suffer brands of colonial rule as the continent bled to near extinction with hundreds of people barbarically killed for claiming their right to self-rule under a government of the majorities who were black people. The Conference of Berlin convene by Chancellor Otto Von Bismarck of Germany was a gathering of greedy European colonial powers desperate for turning Africa into a poor continent void of all minerals, timber, and intellectual prowess. The Conference decide which thief among the countries gathered should steal which part of Africa without permission from the indigenous owners of the land. The duality of implacable poles which pitied the colonised and the coloniser later influenced the genesis of a new force of radical Africans on the continent and in the diaspora. The colonialists were never ready to give up the countries they stole and the black people with the arousal of political and social consciousness through the vision of Pan-Africanists who emerged in the late 19th century. The visionary Pan-Africanists began an unstoppable revolt against colonial rule which started with the non-violence approach mistaken for weakness by the colonial powers. Round table discussions for political freedom worked in some African countries which were very poor. The mineral-rich as well as the oil-rich countries such as the Congo-Kinshasa, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Angola, Nigeria, Ghana and many others experienced violence with alarming proportions and in the ultimate the colonialists had to vacate the continent against their will or wish. Victory was on the side of Pan-Africanists and puppets of the whites had to grind their teeth in stunning embarrassment as the forces of oppression always have a divinely-set expiry date.
Are ideals of the Pan-Africanists being honoured on Africa Day?
From 25th May 1963 Africa as a continent has been celebrating its Freedom Day with fanfare highly beautified by defence and security brass bands belting out freedom songs in instrumental lyrics to the temporary amusement and amazement of the people at various stadia and presidential palaces and state houses. The excitement is just ceremonial and for just some hours as political speeches are given in some countries and in countries like Zambia, some citizens and special guests from other countries are honoured for their distinguished services to their country or to Africa. This for over 63 years has been the case and it now looks like a very casual and cheap way of honouring our brave fallen heroes who strove sacrificially for the decolonisation of Africa and total ownership of the wealth of the continent by Africans themselves. Economic freedom which the forefathers and foremothers yearned for is still a pipedream after over a hundred years since Sylvester Williams convened the first Pan African Congress in London in 1900. The West still runs our economies and it is shameful that even the drugs Africans are supposed to manufacture themselves in their sovereign states are donated by the West and the advent of the neophyte extreme white president Donald J. Trump has seen African leaders subjected to agonizing embarrassment even where the art of diplomacy is supposed to be employed, Trump and his lackeys have used vulgarity and uncouth language to depreciate the dignity of the black African personality to the level of wild beasts or brainless apes. The scandals exposed by a foreign donor at the Ministry of Health is just unacceptable and agonizing as a crude embarrassment. We should not shield criminal cartels in any ministry but to be exposed by a benevolent cooperating partner in such a callous manner is disgusting and widely exasperating. Why should we condone such heights of high profile thefts in such key ministries like Health? Are there intensive and extensive audits of drugs supplied to the Ministry of Health? The buck stops at all of us! Pan Africanism must exhort us to be responsible and accountable in the way we discharge our duties and responsibilities. It must speak transparent honesty and integrity as bywords for all the occupants of state offices who must be there to serve the people of Africa and not to steal what belongs to them.
The African Union leaders seem not to be doing much to honour the vision of its founding fathers of its forerunner, the OAU. The unification of Africa into a great continental power to make every African proud and free is still a far-fetched dream darkened by the cloud of greed and treachery perpetrated by ourselves. We always give leverage to Western investors to take control of our economies and pay lip service to promotion of local investments into mining which has been monopolized by Transnational Corporations backed by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). We have had great African geniuses running international institutions such as Dr Ngozi Okonjo-Iwela, former managing director of the IMF and currently managing director of the World Trade Organization from Nigeria, Obiageli ‘Oby’ Ezekwesili former vice president of the World Bank – Africa Region who also stood as presidential candidate in the 2019 elections of Nigeria an outspoken, blunt-speaking advocate of women’s rights, Nkosana-Dlamimi Zuma former African Union Commissioner and first woman to lead the African Union Secretariat, Chief Emeka Anyouku former Secretary -General of the Commonwealth Group of Nations from Nigeria, Salim Ahmed Salim former Organisation of African Unity (OAU) from Tanzania, late Koffi Attah Annan first black African Secretary -General of the United Nations from Ghana and many more personages who have done wonders for the continent in the continental and regional organisations but our continent still wallows in the muddy waters of underdevelopment with millions barely able to make ends meet as poverty is generating rapidly and rubbing off the little gains nations-states recorded in respect with gross domestic product (GDP) though some countries like Rwanda, Burkina Faso, Uganda and Mauritius seem to be doing very well and shining economically akin to the attainment of Singapore which many countries are looking up to.
The tragedy of Africa is that, unlike the commitment of the founding fathers and pioneers of African unity like Kwame Nkrumah, Abubakar Tafawa Balewa Julius Nyerere, Sekou Tourre, Leopold Sedar Senghor, Gilchrist Olympio, Kenneth Kaunda and Milton Obote among few others, the new breed of political party leaders is more of greed and admiration of long-stay in power to amass personal wealth and enrich their children, leaving a trail of grinding poverty in their paths beyond the solution of their successors. Corruption is more, less a formal and normal practice in government circles. They are devoid of good morals and are overshadowed by the egocentric ambition to rule their nations for life and suppress leaders of the opposition with brazen impunity. Misery is what they deliver to their citizens and forcibly turn themselves into personality cults which swallow the pride of political parties. Their names and political parties they lead become synonymous.
Time has come for the African government leaders to rise to the occasion and honour the ideals of the Pan-Africanists of yesteryear and emulate their great works and principles. The nation-states must enact laws which should ban from participating in national elections for life corrupt leaders found guilty by the courts.
Young Zambians in schools must be enlightened on the importance of Africa Freedom Day and what the founding fathers of the OAU had envisioned about a poverty-free Africa with learned people to protect the continent on the pride of Africa as our Motherland fashioned with and blessed by God’s mighty Hands and emphasise the importance of unity which goes counter to ethnic hostility which has left many African nations scarred beyond recognition. The problems besetting Africa are as wide as the whole world but with a great sense of fortitude, resilience and maximum commitment anchored on deep sense of patriotism and continental unity Africa will awaken into a giant it is supposed to be, like a shining city built on a great hill emitting beacons of hope to all people in squalor, poverty, hunger and ill-health.
LONDON, May 22 2025 (IPS) – The new pope, the latest in a line dating back almost 2,000 years, was quickly subjected to a very modern phenomenon: no sooner had Pope Leo XIV delivered his first address than people started trawling his social media history for clues about his views. In the context of an ongoing culture war, the fact that far-right grievance entrepreneurs were quick to decry the new pope as ‘woke’ seemed reason enough for progressives to welcome him. But for civil society and the global human rights community, it’s how Leo acts that matters.
The numbers alone make Leo’s appointment an event of global significance: Catholics make up over 17 per cent of the planet’s population, and they live predominantly in the global south. Catholicism remains overwhelmingly the dominant religion in Latin America, while the faith continues to grow, particularly in Africa.
This gives the pope great moral influence, which he can use for good – such as by urging climate action and mobilising compassion for migrants and refugees – or for ill, including by maintaining restrictions on women’s and LGBTQI+ rights. The pope is unquestionably a global leader. In an era dominated by right-wing populist and nationalist politicians who are attacking human rights, the pope’s voice can offer a vital counterweight.
Pope Francis’s progressive legacy
Pope Francis broke significant new ground. The first Latin American pope, the Argentinian lived modestly. He didn’t shy away from controversy, speaking out to defend the rights of migrants and refugees. He criticised right-wing populism, neoliberal economics and Israel’s assault on Gaza. He urged action on climate change and made moves to enable women to play a greater role in the church and open up the possibility of blessing for people in same-sex relationships.
ON his watch, the papal office became that of an international diplomat, helping negotiate a Cuba-US rapprochement, later reversed. Critics however pointed to his apparent reluctance to call out Vladimir Putin’s aggression as he sought to help negotiate peace between Russia and Ukraine. He also maintained the church’s opposition to ‘gender ideology’, a term routinely used to undermine demands for women’s and LGBTQI+ rights, particularly trans rights.
Though Francis took many progressive positions, that offered no guarantee his successor would follow suit. Historically a pope seen as liberal is often followed by a more conservative one. Francis however moved to make this less likely, appointing 163 cardinals from 76 countries. Many were from global south countries, including several that had never received such recognition, such as El Salvador, Mali and Timor-Leste. He appointed the first Indigenous Latin American cardinal, and the first from India’s excluded Dalit community.
Francis chose 79 per cent of cardinals aged under 80, eligible to vote on the new pope – including Leo, elevated in 2023. For the first time, the conclave had a non-European majority, with Europeans comprising only 52 of the 133 electors.
Francis’s re-engineering may have foreclosed the prospect of a particularly regressive choice. The result was another piece of history, with Leo the first pope from the USA, while his dual citizenship of Peru makes him the first Peruvian one as well. Known as an ally of Francis but a less outspoken figure, he may have emerged as a compromise choice.
Early days: promise and controversy
Leo’s nationality had been assumed to count against him: with the USA being the dominant global power, received wisdom held that the pope should come from elsewhere. In this Trump-dominated era, it’s hard to avoid the feeling that some who picked a US pope were trying to send a message – although time will tell whether it’s one of flattery or defiance.
US right-wingers, many of whom embrace conservative Catholicism – as Vice President JD Vance exemplifies – made clear they knew what the message was, reacting with anger. Another conservative Catholic, Trump’s former strategist Steve Bannon – who routinely vilified Pope Francis – had aggressively lobbied for a conservative appointment, such as Hungarian hardliner Péter Erdő. Trump supporters allegedly promised huge donations if the conclave selected a pope to their liking, then quickly mobilised outrage about the selection of their fellow citizen, vilifying him as a ‘Marxist pope’.
Among the pre-papacy actions they deemed controversial was Leo’s sharing on Twitter/X of a link to a comment piece that disagreed with Vance, who’d argued that Christians should prioritise their love for their immediate community over those who come from elsewhere. Leo had also shared a post criticising Trump and El Salvador’s hardline leader Nayib Bukele over the illegal deportation of migrant Kilmar Abrego Garcia.
In other past posts, he’d supported climate action and appeared to back gun control, defended undocumented migrants and shown solidarity with George Floyd, the Black man whose murder by a police officer in 2020 triggered the resurgence of the Black Lives Matter movement. Leo’s choice of name also appears to indicate a reformist intent. But on the other side of the ledger, a history of anti-LGBTQI+ comments quickly came to light. Leo is also accused of mishandling past sexual abuse allegations against priests under his supervision.
A moral voice in turbulent times
For civil society, what Leo does next matters more than his social media history. There are some encouraging early signs. Leo has signalled a more sympathetic approach to Ukraine and called for the release of jailed journalists.
The likelihood, if Leo’s career so far is anything to go by, is that he’ll be less outspoken than his predecessor, and more inclined towards negotiation and compromise. But the papacy offers a very different platform to that of a cardinal. Leo should take account of the fact that he’s assumed office at a time of enormous conflict, polarisation and turmoil, where many of the established assumptions about how politics and governance should be conducted are being torn up, and when global institutions and the idea of a rules-based order are coming under unprecedented strain. There’s a moral leadership vacuum in the world right now. He should help fill it.
The closing session of the Preparatory Committee for the 2026 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). Credit: UN TV
NEW YORK, May 21 2025 (IPS) – The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons must not be allowed to collapse under the weight of geopolitical cynicism, the preparatory committee at the UN heard.
Throughout the two weeks, delegations expressed their positions and deliberated over recommendations that would shape the agenda for the 2026 conference. Beyond member states, other stakeholders such as civil society groups were emphatic in expressing the urgency of the nuclear issue and calling for member states to take action.
“The continued existence of nuclear weapons remains one of the most urgent and existential dangers facing life on this planet,” said Florian Eblenkamp, an advocacy officer for the International Coalition Against Nuclear Weapons (ICAN). He went further to state, “The non-proliferation norm must not be allowed to collapse under the weight of geopolitical cynicism. If the NPT is to have a future, States Parties must send an unambiguous signal: Nuclear weapons are not to be spread. Not to be shared. Not to be normalized.”
The committee’s chair, Ambassador Harold Agyeman, who serves as the Permanent Representative of Ghana to the United Nations, told reporters early on that the success of the review conference in 2026 would be “dependent on the political will of state parties” in demonstrating progress on their obligations of the treaty and to “strengthen accountability for the related implementation of existing commitments.”
“Indeed, many around the world are concerned by the lack of raw progress on nuclear disarmament, and emerging proliferations risk that could undermine the hard-won norms established to bring about a world free of nuclear weapons and a regime to achieve that goal,” said Agyeman.
The third preparatory session took place in a time of increasing global anxiety over nuclear proliferation and even escalation. The most recent conflict between India and Pakistan has the world on edge that two nuclear powers might engage in war. Since April, Iran and the United States have been in negotiations over a new nuclear deal, which at times has seen both sides at a deadlock over limiting Iran’s nuclear programme.
Given that context, plus pre-existing tensions between other global powers, such as Russia and the war in Ukraine, this session was an opportunity for countries to act with urgency towards non-proliferation and to respect their obligations under the NPT. By the end of the conference, however, it seemed no agreement was reached. Revised recommendations for the review conference failed to reach consensus. This continues a concerning pattern of preparatory meetings that also failed to adopt an outcome.
As the meeting reached its conclusion on May 9, delegations expressed regret that the draft agreement did not reach consensus. “We regret that the desired breakthrough on transparency and accountability in the context of the strengthened due process was not reached,” said one delegate from Egypt. “The discussion was mature and based itself on mutual respect and commitment to multilateralism.
Many delegations made sure to reaffirm their commitment to the NPT and to strengthening the review process. Yet there was also a recurring acknowledgement of the “complex geopolitical situation” that presented a challenge in reaching consensus.
Civil society organizations have also been vocal in their disappointment at the lack of agreement or outcome document. ICAN stated that the lack of an agreement reflected a “horrifying lack of urgency in response to current risks.” Reaching Critical Will went further to criticize nuclear-armed states for refusing to comply with international law and their obligations to the NPT, which calls for them to eliminate nuclear weapons.
The NPT Review Conference (RevCon) is expected to be held in New York from 27 April to 22 May 2026. The PrepComm nominated Vietnam to chair the RevCon. Ambassador Dang Hoang Giang, Permanent Representative of Vietnam to the United Nations, stated that the presidency would be “characterized by inclusive, transparent, and balanced proceedings” that would ensure that the perspectives and interests of all state parties would be respected.
“The road ahead will be challenging, but we remain confident that through collective wisdom and shared determination, meaningful progress is not only possible but achievable. A robust and effective treaty ensures a safer and more secure work for everyone,” said Giang.
The presence—and threat—of nuclear weapons looms large. For good reason, they cannot simply be relegated to history as a relic of hubris and ambition when we can observe their influence in modern geopolitics. If the spirit for nuclear nonproliferation is indeed still there, then the international community must be vigilant in advocating for the NPT and other disarmament treaties, rather than let a small percentage of parties dictate the global agenda. This must be an ongoing process, lest we see the continued undermining of nonproliferation and multilateralism.
Note: This article is brought to you by IPS Noram in collaboration with INPS Japan and Soka Gakkai International in consultative status with ECOSOC.
IPS UN Bureau Report
IPS UN Bureau, IPS UN Bureau Report, NUCLEAR ABOLITION