Genocide Prevention & Responsibility to Protect

Posted on by admin

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

Opinion

Commemorating Genocide Prevention and Awareness Month

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IPS UN Bureau

  Source

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

Posted on by admin

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

Opinion

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ambassador Anwarul K. Chowdhury

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For example,

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have three suggestions to offer:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IPS UN Bureau

  Source

How to Put the ‘Sexy’ Back into Agriculture – Thoughts From CGIAR Science Week

Posted on by admin

Africa, Biodiversity, Climate Change, Conferences, Cooperatives, Development & Aid, Economy & Trade, Editors’ Choice, Environment, Featured, Food and Agriculture, Food Security and Nutrition, Food Sustainability, Food Systems, Global, Headlines, Population, Poverty & SDGs, Sustainable Development Goals, TerraViva United Nations, Trade & Investment

Food Systems

Dr Ismahane Elouafi, Executive Managing Director of CGIAR. Credit: Busani Bafana

Dr Ismahane Elouafi, Executive Managing Director of CGIAR. Credit: Busani Bafana

NAIROBI, Apr 11 2025 (IPS) – This week presented a beacon of hope for young people so that the “girl from the South and the boy, of course” could stay in the developing world, Dr Ismahane Elouafi, Executive Managing Director of CGIAR, said during a press conference on the final day of the CGIAR Science Week.

Science and innovation could whet their appetites, especially as research and innovation can change the perception that it is a drudgery-filled occupation to one where there is room for ambition – and it made business sense.

“In the face of slow productivity and rising risks, the case is clear. Investing in agricultural research is one of the smartest and most future-proof decisions that anyone can make,” she said.

Elouafi, along with the other panellists Dr Eliud Kiplimo Kireger, the Director General of KALRO and Eluid Rugut, a youth agri-champion at the Ban Ki-moon Centre, alluded to the broad value chain of agriculture, which will make it attractive to young people.

Dr Eliud Kiplimo Kireger, the Director General of KALRO. Credit: Busani Bafana/IPS

Dr Eliud Kiplimo Kireger, the Director General of KALRO. Credit: Busani Bafana/IPS

Kireger commented that people say, “Agriculture is not sexy, and so we need to make it sexy,” and encourage young people into science. Apart from encouraging young kids into science, there was a space in it for young people who don’t want to see returns on their investments in years but in months.

Rugut’s personal experience backs the claim up; he told the press conference that he first had to convince his father to give him a little land – and this wasn’t an easy task. Rugut, who represents both the youth and a smallholder, said it was only once his father saw the benefits of the new technologies that he was prepared to give his son the benefit of the doubt.

“It was very hard to convince my dad to give us land, but over time, these technologies that I was trying to bring to the farm – like drip irrigation, water pumps and drought-tolerant seeds,” Rugut said, but in the end, “I was able to convince him. Also, my mom was able to convince him.”

Kireger said the week-long conference had shown the power of collaboration, especially because research was expensive and the need was great. However, digitisation had meant that a lot of the research was no longer stuck in the labs and was now in the hands of farmers.

and Eluid Rugut, a youth agri-champion at the Ban Ki-Moon Centre. Credit: Busani Bafana/IPS

Eluid Rugut, a youth agri-champion at the Ban Ki-Moon Centre. Credit: Busani Bafana/IPS

He encouraged farmers (and the journalists at the conference) to take a look at the Google Play store, where there are KALRO apps.

“So, if you go to Google Play Store, you will find many KALRO apps which you can download onto your phone. So, if you’re a coffee farmer, for example, you can download a guide on your phone.”

This digitisation is key to scaling research and making it accessible.

Elouafi, too, said investment in agribusiness was crucial to transforming the sector There was a need for public-private partnerships so farmers were no longer only involved in production but down the value chain too.

“So strategic investment in agricultural research isn’t just necessary; it is economically smart. We have seen a USD 10 return on every dollar spent on research and development in the agriculture sector.”

She provided several examples. Participating in the value chain could transform USD 300 of wheat into USD 3000 through pasta production. Likewise with quinoa, millet and sorghum, which cost USD 4 in the market, with production, can fetch USD 50 to USD 100 per kilogram in the market.

This opportunity is where policies and subsidies come in, to put this potential into the hands of the farmers. “This is a gap we need to bridge,” Elouafi said.

Elouafi reported significant progress this week, particularly in addressing food insecurity. The achievements included the launch of the CGIAR research portfolio, the International Potato Centre (CIP) and KALRO biotech agreement, the IWMI water security strategy for East Africa, and the publication of CGIAR’s flagship report, Insight to Impact: A decision-maker’s guide to navigating food system science.

“Science week  has demonstrated the strength of partnerships. How together we can generate powerful tools, innovation, technologies, knowledge, institutions, policies – all of it – to deliver real-world impact for the communities that we serve.

“In the era of fake news and misinformation, our work, our impact, our partnership, and our commitment to the communities we serve are real, and our impact is real, and we need to have a much louder voice. We cannot let it up because the gap will be filled by misinformation.”

IPS UN Bureau Report,

 

Migrant Smuggling: Europe Must Make a U-Turn

Posted on by admin

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

Opinion

Picture Alliance / Pacific Press | Geovien So

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

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

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

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

Criminalising solidarity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who benefits?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IPS UN Bureau

  Source

US Tariffs Threaten to Undermine World Trade Organization

Posted on by admin

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

Credit: John Birch Society

UNITED NATIONS, Apr 11 2025 (IPS) – As the Trump administration’s hostility towards the United Nations and other international organizations keeps growing, a New York Times columnist last week proposed what he frivolously described as “something a little incendiary”.

Maybe Trump could follow up on his non-appointment of Elise Stefanik as US Ambassador to the United Nations—who has been virulently anti-UN—by withdrawing the US from the United Nations entirely.

The UN’s 39-storeyed building, the Times columnist remarked, has “amazing views of the East River”—and said, rather sarcastically, it would be a great condo conversion– as a luxury apartment complex.

A White House Executive Order last February was titled “Withdrawing the United States from, and ending funding to certain United Nations organizations, and reviewing United States support to ALL international organizations.”

President Trump, who withdrew the US from the UN Human Rights Council, the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Climate Treaty, has threatened to pull out of UNESCO and the UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) for Palestine Refugees in the Near East– and also to terminate US contracts with the World Food Programme (WFP) in Rome (which was later reversed and described as “a mistake”).

And could Trump reverse his withdrawals from UN agencies –as he did with tariffs? But that seems very unlikely.

Trump’s staggering US tariffs worldwide have not only threatened the longstanding ground rules in world trade but also undermined the Geneva-based World Trade Organization (WTO), described as the only global international organization dealing with the rules of trade between nations.

Deborah Elms, head of trade policy at the Hinrich Foundation, which is focused on trade, was quoted as saying: “I would say the WTO is toast, but what matters now is how other members respond”.

“Do they stand up for the system? Or do they also ignore key principles, provisions and practices?”

In his unpredictable on-again, off-again decision-making, Trump backed down last week on most reciprocal tariffs for a period of 90 days, citing new talks with foreign nations, explaining his reversal. But China, he said, would not be included, and he raised tariffs on its exports to 125 percent.

Perhaps after 90 days, the tariffs will be at play once again, continuing to de-stabilize world trade and the global economy.

The move leaves a universal 10 percent tariff on all other countries except Canada and Mexico, which face separate duties. But it undoes some of the original tariffs — 20 percent on the European Union, 24 percent on Japan, 46 percent on Vietnam.

China has said it will impose reciprocal tariffs on all imports from the United States, escalating a trade war between the world’s two largest economies.

Mandeep S. Tiwana, Interim Co-Secretary-General CIVICUS, a global alliance of civil society organizations (CSOs), told IPS: “We are entering a dangerous age of values-free transactional diplomacy which is leading to the breakdown of the rules based international order”.

A lot of it, he pointed out, has to do with the rise of authoritarianism and populism over the past few years which has elevated political leaders who spread disinformation and rule by personality cult rather than established norms.

“Civil society and the independent media serve as important checks on the exercise of arbitrary power in the public interest but are being attacked in unprecedented ways,” he declared.

Sadly, humanity has been here before in the period prior to the start of the first and second world wars in the twentieth century, which caused immeasurable death and destruction.

Autocratic and populist regimes, he said, are deliberately undermining international norms that seek to create peaceful, just, equal and sustainable societies.

Notably, civil society organising and citizen action offer the last line of defence against the relentless assault on cherished ideals enshrined in constitutional and international law,” said Tiwana.

Asked if the rash of tariffs would lead to a global economic recession, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres told reporters April 8: “I’ve been clarifying my position about this issue time and time again. Trade wars are extremely negative. Nobody wins with a trade war. Everybody tends to lose”.

“And I’m particularly worried with the most vulnerable developing countries, in which the impact will be more devastating. I sincerely hope that we will have no recession, because a recession will have dramatic consequences, especially for the poorest people in the world,” he warned.

Dr Jim Jennings, president of Conscience International and Executive Director of US Academics for Peace, told IPS the widespread “Hands Off” protests in the US threaten to return the country to the decades of debate over tariffs that took place during the 19th Century. The issue then, as now, was protectionism—believed to enrich the manufacturing class.

Whereas the Whigs (today’s Republicans) wanted high tariffs, the idea of free trade as a way to reach prosperity was the mantra of the Democrats, who favored the working class.

President Lincoln favored tariffs, but by 1860 admitted that arguing for a protective tariff was unwise for political reasons—few people at that time favored it. Most Americans had come to realize that high tariffs were protecting the moneyed class and simply raise taxes for everybody. Lincoln knew he was unlikely to be elected President if tariffs were the key to his campaign.

Today’s bewildering day in-day out bluffs and threats by Mr. Trump means that the market will continue to bounce around. “Wall Street likes certainty, but the only certainty we can see is that the US economy is in the hands of amateurs”.

“While the idea of comparing our globalized economy to that of 1840-60 is problematic, with the world already teetering on the verge of WW III, a Trade War is the last thing we need,” declared Dr Jennings.

Andreas Bummel, Executive Director, Democracy Without Borders, told IPS “from the standpoint of democratic checks and balances, it is concerning that the US President apparently can unleash a trade war with most of the world’s countries while the US Congress simply looks on.”

But according to an Associated Press (AP) report April 9, the State Department has rolled back an undisclosed number of sweeping funding cuts to U.N. World Food Program emergency projects in 14 impoverished countries, saying it had terminated some of the contracts for life-saving aid “by mistake”.

“There were a few programs that were cut in other countries that were not meant to be cut, that have been rolled back and put into place,” State Department spokeswoman Tammy Bruce told reporters.

Meanwhile, China has said it will retaliate by imposing reciprocal tariffs on all imports from the United States. “This practice of the U.S. is not in line with international trade rules, undermines China’s legitimate rights and interests, and is a typical unilateral bullying practice,” China’s finance ministry said in a statement.

China has also filed a lawsuit with the World Trade Organization, saying the U.S. tariffs were “a typical unilateral bullying practice that endangers the stability of the global economic and trade order.”

Dr. Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, Director-General of the WTO, said the Secretariat is closely monitoring and analysing the measures announced by the United States on April 2, 2025.

“Many members have reached out to us and we are actively engaging with them in response to their questions about the potential impact on their economies and the global trading system.”

The recent announcements, he pointed out, will have substantial implications for global trade and economic growth prospects.

“While the situation is rapidly evolving, our initial estimates suggest that these measures, coupled with those introduced since the beginning of the year, could lead to an overall contraction of around 1% in global merchandise trade volumes this year, representing a downward revision of nearly four percentage points from previous projections”

“I am deeply concerned about this decline and the potential for escalation into a tariff war with a cycle of retaliatory measures that lead to further declines in trade.”

It is important to remember that, despite these new measures, the vast majority of global trade still flows under the WTO’s Most-Favored-Nation (MFN) terms.

“Our estimates now indicate that this share currently stands at 74%, down from around 80% at the beginning of the year. WTO members must stand together to safeguard these gains.”

Trade measures of this magnitude have the potential to create significant trade diversion effects. “I call on Members to manage the resulting pressures responsibly to prevent trade tensions from proliferating,” said Dr Okonjo-Iweala.

IPS UN Bureau Report

  Source

A Make-or-Break Moment for Global Development Finance—& the Role Philanthropy Must Play

Posted on by admin

Civil Society, Climate Change, Editors’ Choice, Environment, Featured, Global, Headlines, Human Rights, Sustainable Development Goals, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion

FFD4 Home Seville Platform for Action, 30 June-3 July 2025. Credit: United Nations

WASHINGTON DC, Apr 9 2025 (IPS) – This June, world leaders will gather in Seville for the Fourth International Conference on Financing for Development (FfD4), a milestone opportunity to reimagine how the global economy delivers for people and the planet. But the real question isn’t whether this historic convening will happen. It’s whether it will matter.

Global systems are straining under the weight of overlapping crises: a ballooning debt burden across the Global South, massive financing gaps to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and climate catastrophes that demand urgent and equitable funding.

And yet, even as needs escalate, traditional sources of foreign aid are in retreat. The U.S. and other major donors are pulling back, creating gaping holes in public budgets and threatening the survival of civil society organizations that provide essential services and accountability functions.

Michael Jarvis

We are facing a post-aid world. But that doesn’t mean we must accept a post-development world. In fact, the FfD4 conference, set for June 30 to July 3 in Seville, presents a rare and time-sensitive opportunity to reconfigure development finance – balancing funds that will come from taxes and raising sustainable debt with those to come as official development assistance or via philanthropic contributions.

And if governments are willing to be bold, they won’t be alone. Philanthropy can be a catalytic force backing systemic reforms. Funders can lead by example with commitments under the Sevilla Platform for Action that will bring together voluntary initiatives to deliver measurable progress to boost a renewed financing framework.

The current draft of the conference outcome document includes some encouraging steps: nods to progressive taxation, recognition of the need for fairer sovereign debt mechanisms, and reform of international finance institutions.

But as the Center for Economic and Social Rights (CESR) notes, many proposals still fall short of transformative change. Key concepts like human rights, gender equality, and participation appear inconsistently and more as rhetoric than as guiding principles.

We can do more to center Global South voices in negotiations and this is one way in which philanthropy can step up – helping expand the participation of diverse voices to be at the table, ensuring the perspectives of those most affected by financing decisions are heard.

Funders can also support the technical and diplomatic engagement of Global South governments in negotiations, so their priorities are fully represented.

Beyond participation, there’s a pressing need to fill thematic gaps—particularly in underfunded areas such as debt justice, fair taxation, and protection of civic space. Philanthropic commitments that align publicly with the FfD4 goals can build credibility and create positive pressure for ambitious reforms.

Just as importantly, funders must be willing to invest beyond the conference itself, providing long-term support to translate declarations into tangible outcomes on the ground.

Consider the issue of sovereign debt. Today, over 50 countries are in crisis, with many spending more on debt service than on healthcare or education. Without systemic reform, these countries will remain trapped in cycles of austerity and underdevelopment.

Philanthropy can fund advocacy, support debtor country coalitions and research to unlock debt relief, but also invest in revising frameworks, including building in greater transparency and oversight, to ensure that when countries borrow in the future debt is more sustainable.

Tax reform is another area where funders can have a significant impact. In the face of reduced foreign assistance, countries will need to rely more on their own revenue mobilization, but in ways that don’t exacerbate inequality.

From reinforcing constructive engagement in shaping the new UN Framework Convention on International Tax Cooperation to supporting watchdog organizations that expose illicit financial flows, philanthropy can help shift the narrative and the policy framework toward a fairer tax system and restore faith in tax as our “social superpower” that supports so many of the services that citizens rely upon.

Climate finance, too, demands a bolder philanthropic role. For example, we need to invest not just in raising new finance for climate mitigation and adaptation, but in ensuring those funds get to where they need to go.

Philanthropy can support government and civil society capacity to ensure that every climate dollar counts. None of this is about replacing governments. It’s about augmenting their ability to act in the public interest and holding them accountable when they do not.

Funders, such as the members of the Trust, Accountability and Inclusion Collaborative, have already demonstrated what’s possible when philanthropy aligns with governance reform. They’re not just writing checks, they are investing in a more trust-based, accountable and inclusive development finance system. That model must become the norm and for those funders interested to learn more there are peers ready to offer advice or join forces.

In an era when multilateralism is under strain and trust in public institutions is eroding, the role of independent, values-driven actors is more important than ever. The FfD4 conference is a moment to demonstrate that the international development community can still serve people and the planet if enough of us are willing to push in that direction.

Philanthropy has the agility, the resources, and the networks to lead that push. It must not be a silent partner at this time. The stakes are too high.

Michael Jarvis is the Executive Director of the Trust, Accountability, and Inclusion (TAI) Collaborative, a network of philanthropic funders advancing systemic reforms to build more inclusive and accountable governance globally.

IPS UN Bureau

  Source