Distribution of rice for vulnerable communities in Port-au-Prince, Haiti, by USAID, PICRYL.
THE HAGUE, Netherlands, Mar 19 2025 (IPS) – A new survey carried out by the EU System for an Enabling Environment (EU SEE) network exposes the impact of the US funding freeze on civil society organisations (CSOs) in over 50 countries. With 67% of surveyed organisations directly impacted and 40% of them losing between 25-50% of their budgets, the abrupt halt in funding is disrupting critical human rights, democracy, gender equality and health programs, leaving vulnerable communities without essential support.
– The decision by the US to reduce foreign aid funding has become an opportunity to further limit civic space. CSOs are increasingly facing public attacks fuelled by misinformation and negative narratives, along with restrictive regulatory frameworks and heightened scrutiny, according to the new data.
– 67% of surveyed CSOs by EU SEE are directly affected, with 40% of them losing 25-50% of their budgets, forcing them to reduce programs, cut staff or close operations.
– Human rights, democracy and gender equality programs face the most severe disruptions with a real risk of setting the world decades behind.
– Many organisations lack alternative funding sources and risk shutting down permanently.
“Across the world, the immense contributions of civil society to democracy, the rule of law, good governance, policy making and in advancing the rights of excluded voices continue to be undermined by actions that constrain their enabling environment. The time is now for joint action with civil society to push back on these restrictions by advocating for open spaces and progressive laws that promote and protect rights for all,” says David Kode, Global Programme Manager EU SEE.
What Needs to Happen?
The EU SEE network urges governments, donors and policymakers to take immediate action in the following ways:
– Emergency financial support to stabilize affected CSOs – Stronger donor coordination to ensure sustained support for democracy, human rights, and media freedom programmes. – Flexible and sustainable funding mechanisms that allow CSOs to adapt. – Support civil society organisations to develop stronger advocacy & communication strategies to counter narrative backlash.
“If we don’t act now, vital programs which are the direct result of civil society’s impact, supporting democracy, human rights, and communities will disappear,” warns Sarah Strack, Forus Director.
A message echoed by Gina Romero, UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights to Freedoms of Peaceful Assembly and of Association, in an interview with CIVICUS: “These measures are a stake in the heart of the right to freedom of association, especially because of the way the decision is made: radical, surprising, with no possibility of gradual action, with little transparency and zero participation of the affected actors.” CIVICUS has also conducted a survey on the impact of the changing global funding landscape for civil society among its members around the world.
The US funding freeze, along with the insecurities and “unknowns” it is triggering, is already having far-reaching consequences, and its long-term effects could be even more devastating. The data is clear: civil society is at risk, and the time to act is now.
BANGKOK, Thailand, Mar 19 2025 (IPS) – “The fundamental weakness is empathy,” Musk recently told radio podcast host Joe Rogan. “There is a bug, which is the empathy response.”
As Musk has established himself as at least the second most powerful person in an administration seeking a wholesale remaking of institutions, rules and norms, what he said matters, because it encapsulates a political plan. What the Project 2025 report set out in over 900 turgid pages, Musk’s remark captures in a simple pithy mantra for the social media age.
Credit: U.S. Air Force / Trevor Cokley
And as (let us acknowledge it) the Trump revolution is currently popular with at least large parts of the US electorate, and some overseas too, what Musk said summarises also the worldview of a social-cultural moment and movement on the march.
Core to the argument against empathy is the claim that ethical and practical considerations run counter to each other. The guardrails of rules and norms about caring for others, it argues, don’t only hold us back, they tie our hands behind our back.
Morality is for losers, it suggests, and who wants to lose? Only when we cut ourselves free of the burden of looking after and looking out for others, it posits, can we soar. The practical applications of this worldview are all encompassing.
They include the ripping up of international cooperation, the gutting of life-saving programmes for people in poverty abroad and at home, and the violating of due process for protestors, prisoners, migrants, minorities and anyone (who can be made to be) unpopular. That’s not how it ends, that’s how it starts.
A collapse of empathy would be an existential threat to the world. Hannah Arendt, reflecting on her witness to, and escape from, the rise of fascism in the 1930s, concluded “the death of empathy is one of the earliest and most telling signs of a culture about to fall into barbarism.” The stakes are too high for us to fail.
So how can we respond to the argument against empathy?
One way would be to stick only to ethics, arguing, simply, “it is our duty to sacrifice for others, and failing to do so is just wrong!” This has driven what has come to be known as the charity narrative.
This approach seems like a flawed strategy because by refusing to engage in the practicality conversation, it concedes it to the cynics and nihilists, accepting the framing of morality as a kind of self-immolation that brings only noble suffering and that cares only about stances, not consequences.
Another way would be to give up on ethics, and make only the most selfish arguments for doing good, like “we should not show ourselves to be unreliable because that would get us knocked off the top perch by our rivals when we must be Number One!” This too seems like a flawed strategy because it reinforces variations of dog-eat-dog as the only frames for success.
What both of those approaches get wrong is that they accept the frame that ethics and practicality are separate. Older wisdoms have long understood them as inseparable. What can in current debates seem like a rivalrous relationship between “what is good?” and “what is smart?”, or “what is moral?” and “what is wise?”, we often find when we look more deeply is not.
That often, the way in which societies developed moral principles was that they are ways to abstract what people have learnt from experience works. When, for example, people say in the African principle of Ubuntu “I am because you are”, that is not just a moral or theological point, it is literally true.
It is what public health teaches us: that I am healthy because my neighbour is healthy. (Even Musk was forced to concede to public pressure on this with his partial admission that “with USAID, one of the things we cancelled, accidentally, was Ebola prevention, and I think we all want Ebola prevention.”
Fearful of the reaction to his initial cancellation of Ebola prevention, he even claimed, falsely, to have fixed that “mistake” straight away, but what matters here is that the case against Ebola prevention collapsed so fast because interdependence was so quickly understood.)
So too, history has continuously shown that I am only secure when my neighbour is secure, and that I thrive when my neighbour thrives. Perhaps, for oligarchs, a ruthless, rule-less, world can work. (Perhaps not, however, when the fall-out comes between the “two bros”.)
But for the 99.9% of us, as John Donne wrote, “no man is an island”. We are interdependent and inseparable. Alone we are weak but together we are strong. Or, as the brilliant bleak joke of old ascribed to Benjamin Franklin put it, “we must all hang together, or assuredly we shall hang separately.”
The mutual interest argument, which highlights to people “we each have a stake in the well-being of all, looking out for others is not losing,” does not take us away from values, it reinforces them.
“There is an interrelated structure of reality. We are all tied in an inescapable network of mutuality. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. I can never be what I ought to be until you are what you ought to be, and you can never be what you ought to be until I am what I ought to be.” That was Revd Martin Luther King in the Letter from Birmingham Jail, and yet he was making an argument that you could say is the argument of mutual interest.
Empathy is not pity. It is rooted in mutuality. As as an ethical frame, it looks at a person in need, perhaps a person that some others don’t fully see, and says straight away “I ought to connect, as that could have been me.” Interdependence, as a practical frame, reflects on the situation of that person, and comes through that reflection to understand that “I need to connect, as that could next time be me.”
Morality and wisdom guide us in the same direction; and as the fastest way there is empathy, that makes empathy not humanity’s weakness but our superpower.
Ben Phillips is the author of How to Fight Inequality.
SORIA, Spain, Mar 17 2025 (IPS) – The slashing of US aid funding by Donald Trump and Elon Musk, and cuts or planned cuts in international support by several European states, threaten to cut off the oxygen supply to a civil society already in a critical condition. At CIVICUS, the global civil society alliance, activists and grassroots groups have shared with us time and again that shifting and volatile donor priorities are one of the top funding challenges they face, alongside limited resources for strategy and restricted funding.
Tais Siqueira
Local civil society in the global south is most affected by these challenges. Funding disruptions are no temporary matter. They reflect systemic failures and deep power and funding inequalities between the global north and global south. They undermine trust, shift power away from the communities most affected by global challenges and force local organisations into a reactive survival mode rather than enabling them to drive strategic action.
This is a critical moment for philanthropy to step up and put locally led development principles into practice. This means channelling more resources directly to local civil society, advocating for the meaningful participation of a diverse local civil society in policy spaces at all levels, ensuring their financial, legal and security resilience, and reimagining the role of philanthropy as being not just a funder, but an investor, catalyser and collaborator. As a starting point, philanthropic funders should do the following.
1. Commit to immediate, flexible, and sustained financial support
Local civil society is on the frontlines of addressing some of the world’s most pressing issues. Yet it’s often the first to feel the impact of funding disruptions. Philanthropy must act quickly to provide immediate, flexible and emergency grants to help local organisations survive funding gaps, including by increasing flexibility in existing grants to allow for operational reallocation to cover urgent needs, such as security-related expenses, salaries and insurance.
Unrestricted funding is also critical. Local groups need autonomy to allocate resources where they’re most needed, including for financial, legal and digital protection. Philanthropic funders should prioritise high-quality support – funding that is flexible, predictable and for core work – to support local civil society’s agency and autonomy and avoid orientation around donor priorities. Philanthropy must recognise that trust in local leadership is both the right and strategic thing to do.
2. Strengthen local civil society’s governance through collaboration and promote trust and support
Local leadership isn’t just about financial support; it’s about co-creating the systems and structures that enable local groups to thrive. Philanthropy can play a pivotal role in supporting local groups to strengthen their governance, risk management and compliance systems by fostering collaboration and innovation rather than imposing external standards. Support should be tailored, context specific and co-designed.
One key step is providing direct support to local groups to develop systems that prioritise accountability while trusting them to manage resources. This requires funders to move away from overly prescriptive conditions and toward models of support that acknowledge the leadership and agency of local civil society.
Philanthropy must also recognise that compelling narratives and ambitious policies are needed to stimulate trust and support local civil society. Progressive philanthropic funders can encourage others to follow suit.
3. Invest in infrastructure enabling diverse local civil society groups to collectively organise, share resources and strengthen resilience
In an increasingly interconnected world, the ability of local civil society groups to connect, collaborate and share resources is more important than ever. Investments in infrastructure can enable civil society to bravely defend and promote civic freedoms. Investment will facilitate collective influencing and knowledge-sharing networks, ensuring organisations are better prepared for further funding instability.
Philanthropic funders can earmark funds for emergency response, including for legal defence, audits and unforeseen security threats. Security in the digital sphere is also a critical need, and support can be provided for digital communications infrastructure, encrypted platforms and security audits.
Support for protection of civic space and promotion of civil society participation in decision-making will help enable strategic resistance against rollbacks of hard-won rights and gender, racial and social justice gains.
It’s also crucial to recognise that progressive local civil society groups and leaders are key enablers of locally led development and strengthen civil society’s support infrastructure. Investments in these infrastructures ensure that local groups have the necessary space, resources, agency and autonomy to shape and implement solutions that best fit their contexts.
CIVICUS’s Local Leadership Labs initiative addresses the political, technical and behavioural barriers that hinder governments, donors and other stakeholders from fully embracing and resourcing diverse civil society groups as legitimate participants in development. These labs support radically inclusive spaces, where local civil society groups can drive the development of policies and solutions, together with decision-makers and other key players. This cultivates spaces for collaboration, allowing diverse civil society groups and multi-stakeholder initiatives to share knowledge, reflect and strategise together.
A call to reaffirm commitment to locally led development
Philanthropic funders have unique convening authority, networks and partnerships that can be leveraged to advocate for locally led development. This isn’t just about funding; it’s about using influence to shift narratives and create an enabling environment where local civil society can thrive. Philanthropist must publicly reaffirm their commitment to the Donor Statement on Supporting Locally-Led Development and take real steps to put these principles into action.
The challenges are immense, but so too are the opportunities. By fostering an environment where local civil society has the resources, autonomy and trust to lead, philanthropy can move beyond financial transactions and become a transformative partner.
Tais Siqueira is Coordinator of CIVICUS’s Local Leadership Lab
UNITED NATIONS, Mar 14 2025 (IPS) – The Trump administration’s decision to abandon DEI—diversity, equity and inclusion— which was aimed at promoting fair treatment in the work place, is having its repercussions at the United Nations.
The US has been exerting pressure on UN agencies to drop DEI largely protecting minority groups, and women in particular, who have been historically underrepresented or subject to discrimination.
At least one UN agency has dropped an entire section on DEI following U.S. interventions. And there are reports that some UN agencies are also scrubbing their websites of all references to DEI.
Faced with threats of either US withdrawal or funding cuts, some of the UN agencies are bending over backwards to appease the Trump administration.
The US has already decided to withdraw from the Human Rights Council and the World Health Organization (WHO), while two other UN agencies are under “renewed scrutiny”—the” UN Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA).
The United States has cut $377 million worth of funding to the UNFPA, it was confirmed last week, leading to potentially “devastating impacts”, on women and girls.
The threat against the UN has been reinforced following a move by several Republican lawmakers who have submitted a bill on the U.S. exit from the U.N., claiming that the organization does not align with the Trump administration’s “America First” agenda.
Speaking at a side event during the annual meeting of the Commission on the Status of Women (CSW), March 13, Jonathan Shrier, Acting U.S. Representative to the Economic and Social Council said: “At the United Nations, the United States continues to advocate for women’s empowerment, while firmly opposing attempts to redefine womanhood in ways that undermine the real and meaningful progress women have made.”
“We are committed to promoting policies that support women and families in a way that recognizes and celebrates the biological and social differences that make us who we are. In New York, we have engaged in tough negotiations in a wide variety of UN resolutions, fighting against gender ideology, and calling votes, if necessary, to advance President Trump’s America First foreign policy.”
According to UN Dispatch March 13, even before the CSW began, “the U.S. sought to throw a wrench in the entire event by objecting to otherwise anodyne references to gender equality in a conference document, under the premise that such language directly contradicts Trump’s executive orders against DEI”. In other words, Trump tried to block references to gender equality in a conference dedicated to gender equality.
And according to an Executive Order from the White House last January, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), “shall coordinate the termination of all discriminatory programs, including illegal DEI and “diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility” (DEIA) mandates, policies, programs, preferences, and activities in the Federal Government, under whatever name they appear.”
Joseph Chamie, a consulting demographer and a former director of the United Nations Population Division, told IPS the Trump administration’s domestic decision to abandon DEI has serious implications for the United Nations, especially with US threats of withdrawal and funding cuts.
In particular, the US administration’s decision to abandon DEI, he said, aims to not only reshape US-UN relations but also reshape practices and policies of the United Nations and its various agencies and programs. Diversity and meritocracy concerns vary across country populations and differ considerably globally.
Similar to America, however, countries worldwide are struggling with the issue of how best to balance diversity and meritocracy across disparate ethnic, racial, caste, linguistic and religious subgroups in their populations.
“How best to balance diversity and meritocracy remains a major challenge for countries and the United Nations. That challenge has become more difficult for many countries as a result of the prejudicial use of racial, ethnic, linguistic, ancestry and origin categories.”, said Chamie
In a growing number of areas, including politics, employment, careers, education, armed forces, immigration, the judicial system, entertainment and sports, countries are making far-reaching decisions regarding when to strive for diversity and when to stress meritocracy.
Many countries with domestic concerns about DEI are likely to welcome the Trump administration’s attempt to diminish or do away with DEI initiatives at the United Nations, he pointed out.
Given a growing world population of more than 8 billion people, the shifting demographic landscapes of national populations and the fundamental need to ensure human rights for all, the challenge of balancing diversity and meritocracy can be expected to become even more critical and consequential for countries as well as for the United Nations in the years ahead, declared Chamie.
According to PassBlue, the US delegation has been telling some UN entities they must excise language on DEI, from their work. The US remarks have been repeated in one form or another to the boards of UN Women, UNICEF and World Food Program. (The latter two are run by Americans.)
Dr. Purnima Mane, President and CEO of Pathfinder International and former Deputy Executive Director (Programme) and UN Assistant-Secretary-General (ASG) at the UN Population Fund (UNFPA), told IPS it is indeed unfortunate that the US government’s decision to move away from diversity, equity and inclusion is creating ripple effects among other entities especially those who benefit from US support and contributions.
Early evidence, she pointed out, suggests that some UN agencies are beginning to display increased caution regarding DEI, especially its positioning and language. Ironically this caution is occurring around the 69th session of the Commission on the Status of Women (16-21 March 2025).
“The initial reactions of caution around DEI which we are witnessing from all organizations and entities which the US works with or is a part of (whether it is the UN, the non-profit organizations, major donors, other governments) are inevitable”.
The US, she said, has played a key role in the formation, development and evolution of the UN and of course continues to provide key support to it.
“It is therefore not surprising that the UN to which the US contributes in many significant ways, is sensitive to the evolution in US views but this should not result in the UN shirking away from the main principles on which it was created.”
DEI, she noted, is an acronym that has come to mean different things to different people and countries but its core philosophy and principles are at the root of the UN and can and need to be protected even if the language of DEI is altered.
“Within the UN there needs to be a healthy, constructive debate and discussion among Member States on how resistance to DEI could threaten the philosophy and principles for which the UN stands and to which the governments collectively signed on, thereby questioning the very existence of the UN.”
“Surely, all Member States feel empowered to voice their views and find ways to ensure that the basic principles of the UN remain steadfast. Putting your own country first does not automatically imply that one must not focus on a common, agreed-to agenda based on respect for all,” declared Dr Mane.
Ian Richards, a former President of the Coordinating Committee of International Staff Unions and Associations and an economist at the Geneva-based UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) told IPS: “I don’t think it is correct to say the UN is abandoning DEI”.
The Secretary-General, he said, “is fortunately a big champion and continues to support landmark initiatives on sex, race, disability, regional origin, age and gender identity”.
To varying extents these set hiring quotas, mandatory training and reporting requirements.
A conference will be organized on DEI this summer in Lisbon, hosted by the Government of Portugal, to identify further ways to strengthen measures. Unlike other organizations the Secretary-General has also maintained the right of staff to choose their pronouns in email communications.
A family gathers in a damaged building in Rafah in the southern Gaza Strip. 10 March 2025. Credit: World Food Program (WFP)
NEW YORK, Mar 13 2025 (IPS) – 77 torturous years of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, punctuated by intense violence and wars, successive Netanyahu-led governments have shattered Jewish values to the core—values that have sustained and preserved Jewish lives for centuries and provided the moral foundation on which Israel was built.
Throughout millennia of dispersion, the Jews had no army, no weapons, and no advanced technology to fight back against persecution, segregation, expulsion, and death, but they survived.
They persevered because they upheld these moral values at all times: in times of joy, in times of suffering, in times of loss, in times of gain, and in times of anxiety when they did not know what tomorrow would bring.
The historian Paul Johnson noted in his book A History of the Jews: “To [the Jews] we owe the idea of equality before the law, both divine and human; of the sanctity of life and the dignity of the human person; of the individual conscience and so of personal redemption; of the collective conscience and so of social responsibility; of peace as an abstract ideal and love as the foundation of justice, and many other items which constitute the basic moral furniture of the human mind.”
Tragically, these moral values have not resonated with Prime Minister Netanyahu and his ardent followers. From the first day he rose to power in 1996, he vowed to undermine the Oslo Accords, and swore to never allow the establishment of a Palestinian state under his watch. Since he returned to power in 2008, the Israeli-Palestinian relationship has hit a new nadir, and the prospect for peace is dimmer today than ever before.
Dehumanizing and brutalizing the Palestinians under occupation in the West Bank, tightening the blockade around Gaza, and categorically objecting to making any meaningful concessions to reach a peace agreement became his life-long mission, rendering the conflict increasingly intractable.
He facilitated the transfer of billions of dollars from Qatar to Hamas, which allowed Hamas to build a powerful militia that is still standing against Israel’s formidable military machine. Netanyahu convinced himself that Hamas was under control, but then came Hamas’ savage attack under his watch.
Though Hamas’ barbarism is unforgivable, and Israel has every right to defend itself, Netanyahu unleashed a retaliatory war against Hamas unparalleled in its scope and disproportionality. The war has laid two-thirds of Gaza in ruin; 47,600 Palestinians were killed, with half of those identified as women, children, or elderly, and over 100,000 have been injured.
Forcible and repeated displacement of 1.9 million people, restriction on deliveries of food, medicine, drinking water, and fuel, and the destruction of schools and hospitals, precipitated a humanitarian disaster unseen since Israel was created in 1948.
Revenge and torture, shooting to kill with no questions asked, and treating all Palestinians in Gaza—men, women, and the elderly—as legitimate targets as if they were all combatants, demonstrate the moral rot that has taken root in Israel.
Asa Kasher, one of Israel’s best-known philosophers, recently stated, “We heard a eulogy from the family of a soldier who was killed, who related how he burned homes and undertook acts of revenge. Where did this disturbed idea of revenge come from?”
These moral crimes have not only violated the laws of war but the very core of Jewish values. They have not brought back to life a single Israeli who was massacred by Hamas, they have only satisfied a corrupt Netanyahu-led government that functions like a criminal gang whose thirst for Palestinian blood is insatiable and would stop short of nothing to achieve its ends.
Furthermore, Netanyahu is using the cover of the Gaza war, where the whole world’s attention is focused, to ransack the West Bank.
During the past 17 months, 886 Palestinians were killed in the West Bank and 7,368 were injured. In 2024 alone, 841 homes in the West Bank and 219 homes in East Jerusalem were demolished. Additionally, as of the end of June 2024, 9,440 Palestinians have been detained on “security grounds,” including 226 minors.
There were 1,860 instances of Israeli settler violence against Palestinians from October 7, 2023, to December 31, 2024; under the watchful eyes of the police and the military, settlers regularly attacked Palestinian villages, setting fire to homes and cars, forcing thousands to abandon their homes and villages where they lived for hundreds of years.
As recently as January 2025, Israel launched a large-scale military operation in the West Bank, displacing 40,000 Palestinians, which is in line with Finance Minister Smotrich’s call for the annexation of the West Bank.
Given what the Jews have endured for centuries in foreign lands, it was once hard to imagine that any Israeli government would be capable of treating another human being the way that the Jews have been treated.
The Netanyahu-led government has steadily been trashing the values that provided the moral foundation of Israel, built on the ashes of the 6 million Jews who perished in the Holocaust; this tragic moral collapse of Israel has infected the Israeli public.
There has been hardly any pushback from Israelis, 80 percent of whom were born after 1967. For them, the occupation has become a way of life—the suppression and incarceration of Palestinians is normal, dispossession of their land is a given, demolishing their houses is unvarying, and night raids are another good measure to instill constant anxiety and fear in their hearts.
The Israelis, many of whom have grown numb to the Palestinians’ daily suffering, should wake up for a brief moment and watch what is being done in their name, internalize the daily tragedies that are being inflicted on so many innocent civilians whose only guilt is being Palestinians. Isn’t that evocative of the Jews’ persecution, whose guilt was just being Jewish?
This total betrayal of Jewish values should send shivers through their spines as it has for every decent human being.
Netanyahu does not want peace. Maintaining perpetual conflict with the Palestinians would allow him to usurp more Palestinian land through coercion, intimidation, and violence than what he can gain through a peaceful negotiating process.
He persistently paints the Palestinians as an existential threat while using night raids, home demolitions, and more to provoke them into committing acts of violence to justify the occupation on national security grounds, while gobbling up their land bite by bite.
Netanyahu opposes a Palestinian state but offers no alternative to a two-state solution. He must show the world another option where both sides can live in peace and security short of that. Is the annexation of the West Bank the answer?
It will do nothing but erase Israel’s Jewish character and deprive it of living in security and peace, defying its founders’ vision and its reason for being. Ninety percent of all living Palestinians were born under occupation. They are left hopeless and despairing and have nothing left to lose.
A fourth generation of youth will now live to avenge the calamity that has befallen their people. What fate will await them? They would rather die as martyrs than live hopelessly in servitude. It will not be if but when a new inferno erupts at a magnitude never seen before.
Netanyahu is champing at the bit to exile the Palestinians from Gaza, courtesy of Trump, who is clueless about the horror that will unfold should he act on his brazen idea. However, Netanyahu’s dream of a greater Israel will be nothing but a lasting nightmare.
Israel will never be able to sustain itself on the ashes of the Palestinians. By forsaking Jewish values, Netanyahu is destroying the moral foundation on which the country stands. The Israelis must remember that the values that guarded the Jews’ survival throughout the millennia must be restored to ensure the survival of the country and, indeed, its very soul.
Dr. Alon Ben-Meir is a retired professor of international relations, most recently at the Center for Global Affairs at NYU. He taught courses on international negotiation and Middle Eastern studies.
Antonio Guterres, Secretary-General of the United Nations, at a Press Encounter on the UN80 Initiative
Credit: UN Photo/Loey Felipe
UNITED NATIONS, Mar 12 2025 (IPS) – Our world is facing challenges on every front. Since the United Nations reflects that world in all its aspects, we feel it in all our work.
These are times of intense uncertainty and unpredictability.
And yet certain truths have [never] been more clear: The United Nations has never been more needed. Our values have never been more relevant. And the needs have never been greater.
At the same time, we know the more the UN does together to address big challenges around the world, the less the burden on individual countries to do it alone.
The United Nations stands out as the essential one-of-a-kind meeting ground to advance peace, sustainable development and human rights.
But resources are shrinking across the board – and they have been for a long time. For example, for at least the past seven years, the United Nations has faced a liquidity crisis because not all Member States pay in full, and many also do not pay on time.
From day one of my mandate, we embarked on an ambitious reform agenda to strengthen how we work and deliver.
To be more effective and cost-effective. To simplify procedures and decentralize decisions. To enhance transparency and accountability. To shift capacities to areas such as data and digital.
And, significantly, the Pact for the Future and UN 2.0 are exactly about updating the UN for the 21st century.
These efforts are not ends in themselves. They are about better serving people whose very lives depend on us.
They are about hardworking taxpayers around the world who underwrite everything we do. And they are about ensuring the right conditions for everyone serving under the UN flag as they undertake their critical work.
For all these reasons, it is essential that an organizational system as complex and crucial as the United Nations – subjects itself to rigorous and regular scrutiny to assess its fitness for purpose in carrying out its goals efficiently.
And this 80th anniversary year of the United Nations is a prime moment to expand all our efforts, recognizing the need for even greater urgency and ambition.
That is why I have informed yesterday UN Member States that I am officially launching what we call the UN80 Initiative.
I have appointed a dedicated internal Task Force led by Under-Secretary-General Guy Ryder – and composed of principals representing the entire UN system.
The objective will be to present to Member States proposals in three areas:
First, rapidly identifying efficiencies and improvements in the way we work.
Second, thoroughly reviewing the implementation of all mandates given to us by Member States, which have significantly increased in recent years.
Third, a strategic review of deeper, more structural changes and programme realignment in the UN System.
Under the leadership of the President of the General Assembly, I will consult closely and regularly with all Member States on the progress made, seeking guidance on the way forward and presenting concrete decisions for discussion and decision-making when appropriate.
My objective is to move as soon as possible in areas where I have the authority – and to urge Member States to consider the many decisions that rest with them.
This goes far beyond the technical. Budgets at the United Nations are not just numbers on a balance sheet – they are a matter of life and death for millions around the world.
We must ensure value for money while advancing shared values.
The need is great and the goal is clear: an even stronger and more effective United Nations that delivers for people and is tuned to the 21st century.
