‘Enabling Machines to Make Life and Death Decisions Is Morally Unjustifiable’

Posted on by admin

Active Citizens, Armed Conflicts, Civil Society, Crime & Justice, Featured, Global, Global Geopolitics, Headlines, Human Rights, TerraViva United Nations

Jun 27 2025 (IPS) –  
CIVICUS discusses autonomous weapons systems and the campaign for regulation with Nicole van Rooijen, Executive Director of Stop Killer Robots, a global civil society coalition of over 270 organisations that campaigns for a new international treaty on autonomous weapons systems.

Nicole van Rooijen

In May, United Nations (UN) member states convened in New York for the first time to confront the challenge of regulating autonomous weapons systems, which can select and engage targets without human intervention. These ‘killer robots’ pose unprecedented ethical, humanitarian and legal risks, and civil society warns they could trigger a global arms race while undermining international law. With weapons that have some autonomy already deployed in conflicts from Gaza to Ukraine, UN Secretary-General António Guterres has set a 2026 deadline for a legally binding treaty.

What are autonomous weapons systems and why do they pose unprecedented challenges?

Autonomous weapons systems, or ‘killer robots’, are weapons that, once activated by a human, can select and engage targets without further human intervention. These systems make independent decisions – without the intervention of a human operator – about when, how, where and against whom to use force, processing sensor data or following pre-programmed ‘target profiles’. Rather than using the term ‘lethal autonomous weapons systems’, our campaign refers to ‘autonomous weapons systems’ to emphasise that any such system, lethal or not, can inflict serious harm.

The implications are staggering. These weapons could operate across all domains – air, land, sea and space – during armed conflicts and law enforcement or border control operations. They raise numerous ethical, humanitarian, legal and security concerns.

The most troubling variant involves anti-personnel systems triggered by human presence or individuals or groups who meet pre-programmed target profiles. By reducing people to data points for algorithmic targeting, these weapons are dehumanising. They strip away our inherent rights and dignity, dramatically increasing the risk of unjust harm or death. No machine, computer or algorithm can recognise a human as a human being, nor respect humans as inherent bearers of rights and dignity. Autonomous weapons cannot comprehend what it means to be in a state of war, much less what it means to have – or to end – a human life. Enabling machines to make life and death decisions is morally unjustifiable.

The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) has noted it is ‘difficult to envisage’ scenarios where autonomous weapons wouldn’t pose significant risks of violating international humanitarian law, given the inevitable presence of civilians and non-combatants in conflict zones.

Currently, no international law governs these weapons’ development or use. As the technology advances rapidly, this legal vacuum creates a dangerous environment where autonomous weapons could be deployed in ways that violate existing international law while escalating conflicts, enabling unaccountable violence and harming civilians. This is what prompted the UN Secretary-General and the ICRC president to jointly call for urgent negotiations on a legally binding international instrument on autonomous weapons systems by 2026.

How have recent consultations advanced the regulatory agenda?

The informal consultations held in New York in May, mandated by UN General Assembly (UNGA) Resolution 79/62, focused on issues raised in the UN Secretary-General’s 2024 report on autonomous weapons systems. They sought to broaden awareness among the diplomatic community and complement the work around the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW), emphasising risks that extend far beyond international humanitarian law.

The UNGA offers a crucial advantage: universal participation. Unlike the CCW process in Geneva, it includes all states. This is particularly important for global south states, many of which are not a party to the CCW.

Over two days, states and civil society explored human rights implications, humanitarian consequences, ethical dilemmas, technological risks and security threats. Rich discussions emerged around regional dynamics and practical scenarios, examining how these weapons might be used in policing, border control and by non-state actors or criminal groups. While time constraints prevented exhaustive exploration of all issues, the breadth of engagement was unprecedented.

The Stop Killer Robots campaign found these consultations energising and strategically valuable. They demonstrated how UN processes in Geneva and New York can reinforce each other: while one forum provides detailed technical groundwork, particularly in developing treaty language, the other fosters inclusive political leadership and momentum. Both forums should work in tandem to maximise global efforts to achieve an international legally binding instrument on autonomous weapons systems.

What explains the global divide on regulation?

The vast majority of states support a legally binding treaty on autonomous weapons systems, favouring a two-tier approach that combines prohibitions with positive obligations.

However, roughly a dozen states oppose any form of regulation. Among them are some of the world’s most heavily militarised states and the primary developers, producers and likely users of autonomous weapons systems. Their resistance likely stems from the desire to preserve military superiority and protect economic interests, and the belief in inflated claims about these weapons’ supposed benefits promoted by big tech and arms industries. Or perhaps they simply favour force over diplomacy.

Whatever their motivations, this opposition underscores the urgent need for the international community to reinforce a rules-based global order that prioritises dialogue, multilateralism and responsible governance over unchecked technological ambition.

How do geopolitical tensions and corporate influence complicate international regulation efforts?

It is undeniable that geopolitical tensions and corporate influence are challenging the development of regulations for emerging technologies.

A handful of powerful states are prioritising narrow military and economic advantages over collective security, undermining the multilateral cooperation that has traditionally governed arms control. Equally troubling is the expanding influence of the private sector, particularly large tech companies that operate largely outside established accountability frameworks while wielding significant sway over political leaders.

This dual pressure is undermining the international rules-based order precisely when we most need stronger multilateral governance. Without robust regulatory frameworks that can withstand these pressures, development of autonomous weapons risks accelerating unchecked, with profound implications for global security and human rights.

How is civil society shaping this debate and advocating for regulation?

Anticipating the challenges autonomous weapons systems would pose, leading human rights organisations and humanitarian disarmament experts founded the Stop Killer Robots campaign in 2012. Today, our coalition spans over 270 organisations across more than 70 countries, working at national, regional and global levels to build political support for legally binding regulation.

We’ve played a leading role in shaping global discourse by highlighting the wide-ranging risks these technologies pose and producing timely research on weapons systems evolution and shifting state positions.

Our multi-level strategy targets all decision-makers who can influence this agenda, at local, regional and global levels. It’s crucial that political leaders understand how autonomous weapons might be used in warfare and other contexts, enabling them to advocate effectively within their spheres of influence for the treaty we urgently need.

Public pressure is key to our approach. Recent years have seen growing weapons systems autonomy and military applications, particularly in ongoing conflicts in Gaza and Ukraine, alongside rising use of technologies such as facial recognition in civilian contexts. Public concern about the dehumanising nature of these technologies and the lack of regulation has grown online and offline. We frame these concerns along the whole spectrum of automated harm, with autonomous weapons representing the extreme, and highlight the critical need to close the gap between innovation and regulation.

We also collaborate with experts from arms, military and technology sectors to bring real-world knowledge and credibility to our treaty advocacy. It is crucial to involve those who develop and deploy autonomous weapons to demonstrate the gravity of current circumstances and the urgent need for regulation.

We encourage people to take action by signing our petition, asking their local political representatives to sign our Parliamentary Pledge or just spreading the word about our campaign on social media. This ultimately puts pressure on diplomats and other decision-makers to advance the legal safeguards we desperately need.

GET IN TOUCH
Bluesky
Facebook
Instagram
LinkedIn
Twitter
Nicole/Bluesky
Nicole/LinkedIn

SEE ALSO
Facial recognition: the latest weapon against civil society CIVICUS Lens 23.May.2025
Weaponised surveillance: how spyware targets civil society CIVICUS Lens 24. Apr.2025
Technology: Human perils of digital power CIVICUS | 2025 State of Civil Society Report

  Source

Poland’s Democratic Deadlock

Posted on by admin

Civil Society, Democracy, Economy & Trade, Europe, Featured, Gender, Headlines, Human Rights, Migration & Refugees, Press Freedom, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion

Credit: Kacper Pempel/Reuters via Gallo Images

MONTEVIDEO, Uruguay, Jun 25 2025 (IPS) – Poland’s embattled Prime Minister Donald Tusk emerged bruised but still standing after his government survived a parliamentary vote of confidence on 11 June. He’d called the vote, which he won by 243 to 210, just days after the presidential candidate of his Civic Platform (PO) party suffered an unexpected defeat.

Karol Nawrocki, an independent nationalist conservative backed by the former ruling Law and Justice Party (PiS) defeated liberal pro-European Union (EU) Warsaw Mayor Rafał Trzaskowski in a nail-biting presidential runoff. The result offers a broader test of Poland’s democratic resilience that could have implications across the EU.

The electoral blow

Nawrocki’s path to victory was anything but predictable. The 42-year-old former president of Poland’s Institute of National Remembrance had never held elected office before emerging as PiS’s chosen candidate. Yet his populist message resonated with frustrated voters.

Economic grievances provided fertile ground for nationalist appeals. Despite Poland’s relatively low unemployment, youth unemployment of over 10 per cent is an understandable source of anxiety for younger voters. Increasingly, they’re reacting by rejecting mainstream political offerings.

This helped cause the fragmented results of the 18 May first round. Trzaskowski won only 31.36 per cent of the vote and Nawrocki took 29.54 per cent. The combined vote share of right-wing candidates – Nawrocki and far-right politicians Grzegorz Braun and Sławomir Mentzen – exceeded polling expectations. Braun and Mentzen took over 21 per cent between them, thanks to the support of many young voters.

The 1 June runoff saw Nawrocki win 50.89 per cent to Trzaskowski’s 49.11 per cent, a margin of under two percentage points. Nawrocki took 64 per cent of the rural vote while Trzaskowski commanded 67 per cent in urban centres – an established geographic divide that reflects an enduring ideological division between a conservative, nationalist Poland and its liberal, cosmopolitan counterpart.

Election interference

Disinformation is helping fuel polarisation. The election campaign unfolded against a backdrop of foreign interference concerns that echoed troubling developments across the region – particularly in Romania, where the Supreme Court cancelled the 2024 presidential election due to evidence of Russian interference.

Just days before the first round, Poland’s Research and Academic Computer Network discovered evidence of potentially foreign-funded Facebook ads targeting all major candidates. According to an investigation by fact-checking organisation Demagog, TikTok was flooded with disinformation, particularly but not exclusively against Trzaskowski. The platform’s algorithm displayed far-right content twice as often as centrist or left-wing content to new users, with pro-Nawrocki videos appearing four times more frequently than pro-Trzaskowski content. Over 1,200 fake accounts systematically attacked Trzaskowski, while another 1,200 promoted Nawrocki.

The influence operation extended beyond individual character assassination to sowing distrust in the democratic process and sharing broader far-right narratives. Fake accounts systematically promoted anti-Ukrainian sentiment and anti-immigration conspiracy theories.

Donald Trump also gave Nawrocki an unprecedented level of support: he received him at the White House just before the election and sent his Homeland Security Secretary to campaign for him in Poland as she attended the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC). This year, CPAC, a US conservative platform, held two international events, in Hungary and Poland. The Polish one, timed to coincide with the runoff, offered a clear indication of how the nationalist far right has become internationalised.

Institutional paralysis

The viability of Tusk’s ideologically diverse coalition and his own political future have been called into question by the result. With critics in the Civic Coalition blaming the election defeat on the government’s communication failures and Tusk’s personal unpopularity, the confidence vote became a key test.

But even though Tusk has survived the confidence vote, it will be a tall order to implement the reforms needed to restore the democratic institutions that came under strain during the PiS administration. In eight years in power, PiS dismantled judicial independence, made public media its propaganda mouthpiece and undermined women’s rights by introducing one of Europe’s harshest anti-abortion laws. The new government’s attempts to reckon with this legacy had already been hampered by outgoing President Andrzej Duda, who used his veto power to block key reforms. Nawrocki will continue that, leaving Tusk unable to realise his promises to Polish voters and the EU.

The European Commission had counted on Tusk completing promised judicial reforms as it unlocked billions in pandemic recovery funds frozen over rule-of-law concerns during PiS rule. With progress now unlikely, the Commission faces the difficult decision of whether to maintain its funding even if the government’s unable to deliver promised changes.

Beyond the EU, Nawrocki’s foreign policy positions threaten to complicate Poland’s previously staunch backing of Ukraine. Although supportive of continued aid, Nawrocki has pledged to block any prospects of Ukraine joining NATO and prioritise Polish interests over refugee support.

High stakes

The razor-thin margin of victory in the presidential election, combined with record turnout of 72.8 per cent, tells a complex story of a divided society. While high participation suggests robust civic engagement, the deep polarisation reflected in the results reveals faultlines that extend far beyond conventional political disagreements.

The outcome offers further evidence that, when economic grievances aren’t addressed, institutional trust is allowed to erode and information environments are left vulnerable to manipulation, opportunistic politicians will exploit social divisions and anti-establishment anger.

For Poland, the coming years will test whether democratic institutions can withstand the pressures of sustained political deadlock. Poland faces potential institutional paralysis that could further erode public trust in democratic governance. Poland’s institutions will need to try to demonstrate their continuing effectiveness, and civil society and independent media will need to maintain their credibility, to help protect and nurture democratic values.

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

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

  Source

Pandemic Agreement: Important Step but Big Decisions Deferred

Posted on by admin

Civil Society, COVID-19, Development & Aid, Featured, Global, Headlines, Health, Human Rights, Humanitarian Emergencies, Inequality, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion

Credit: WHO/Christopher Black

BRUSSELS, Belgium, Jun 11 2025 (IPS) – When the next pandemic strikes, the world should be better prepared. At least, that’s the promise states made at the World Health Organization’s (WHO) World Health Assembly on 19 May when they adopted the first global pandemic treaty. This milestone in international health cooperation emerged from three years of difficult negotiations, informed by the harsh lessons learned from COVID-19’s devastating global impacts.

Yet this step forward in multilateralism comes at a deeply difficult moment. The WHO, as the organisation tasked with implementing the agreement, faces its starkest ever financial crisis following the withdrawal of the USA, its biggest donor. Meanwhile, disagreements between states threaten to undermine the treaty’s aspirations. Some of the big decisions that would make the experience of the next pandemic a more equitable one for the world’s majority are still to be negotiated.

A treaty born from COVID-19’s failures

Processes to negotiate the Pandemic Agreement came as a response to the disjointed international reaction to the COVID-19 pandemic. When the virus spread across borders, global north countries hoarded vaccines for their populations but left much of the world unprotected – an approach that as well as being manifestly unfair enabled the virus to further mutate. The treaty’s text emphasises the need for proper pandemic prevention, preparedness and response in all states, with the potential to enhance multilateral cooperation during health crises.

With 124 countries voting in favour, 11 abstaining and none voting against, many diplomats presented the agreement’s finalisation as a victory for global cooperation. It comes at a time when multilateralism is being severely tested, with powerful governments tearing up international rules, pulling out of international bodies and slashing funding. The window of opportunity to reach some kind of agreement was rapidly closing.

A major absence loomed large over the final negotiations. Upon his inauguration in January, President Trump announced the USA would withdraw from the WHO and halt all funding. The withdrawal of a superpower like the USA harms the WHO’s legitimacy and sends a signal to other populist governments that withdrawal is an option. Argentina is following its lead and Hungary may too.

Funding crisis

US withdrawal will leave an enormous funding gap. In the pre-Trump era, the USA was the WHO’s biggest contributor: it provided US$1.28 billion in 2022-2023, amounting to 12 per cent of the WHO’s approved budget and roughly 15 per cent of its actual budget.

As the treaty was agreed, WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus painted a disturbing picture of the organisation’s financial situation. Its 2022-2023 budget showed a US$2 billion shortfall and its current salary gap is over US$500 million. The proposed budget for 2026-2027 has already been slashed by 21 per cent, and this reduced budget is expected to receive only around 60 per cent of the funding needed. The WHO will likely have to cut staff and close offices in many countries.

This reflects a lack of political will: states are making the choice of cutting down on global cooperation while boosting their defence spending. The current WHO funding gap of US$2.1 billion is the equivalent of just eight hours of global military expenditure.

Big issues kicked down the road

Deteriorating political realities made it crucial to reach an agreement as soon as possible, even if this meant kicking some difficult decisions down the road. As a result, the text of the agreement has severe weaknesses.

The treaty lacks dedicated funding and robust enforcement mechanisms, which means the blatant inequalities that defined the global response to COVID-19 are likely to remain unconfronted. It doesn’t tackle the most critical and contested issues, including the international sharing of pathogens and vaccine access.

The treaty will open for ratification following the negotiation of an annex on a pathogen access and benefit-sharing system, a process that could take a further two years. This means implementation is likely still a long way away.

The current impasse reflects an enduring faultline between global south states that need better access to affordable health products and technologies, and global north states siding with powerful pharmaceutical corporations that want their assets protected. Wealthy governments are making their decisions safe in the knowledge they’ll be at the front of the line when the next pandemic starts, while the world’s poorest people will again face the brunt of the devastation.

Political will needed

The Pandemic Agreement is a step forward at a time when international cooperation faces increasing attacks. That 124 countries demonstrated their commitment to multilateral action on global health threats offers hope. But substantial work remains if the treaty is to enable a truly global and fair response to the next health crisis.

For that to happen, the world’s wealthiest states need to put narrow self-interest calculations aside. States also need to address the issue of long-term funding. Right now, global leaders have agreed on the need for coordinated pandemic preparedness, but the institution meant to lead this doesn’t have the resources needed to put goals into action.

The next pandemic will test not just scientific capabilities, but also collective commitment to the shared global values the treaty is supposed to represent. Political will and funding are needed to turn lofty aspirations into meaningful action.

Samuel King is a researcher with the Horizon Europe-funded research project ENSURED: Shaping Cooperation for a World in Transition at CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation.

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

  Source

Portugal: No Longer an Exception to Europe’s Far-right Rise

Posted on by admin

Civil Society, Crime & Justice, Democracy, Development & Aid, Economy & Trade, Europe, Featured, Financial Crisis, Gender, Headlines, LGBTQ, Migration & Refugees, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion

Credit: Zed Jameson/Anadolu via Getty Images

MONTEVIDEO, Uruguay, Jun 5 2025 (IPS) – For decades, Portugal stood as a beacon of democratic stability in an increasingly unsettled Europe. While neighbours grappled with political fragmentation and the rise of far-right movements, Portugal maintained its two-party system, a testament to the enduring legacy of the 1974 Carnation Revolution that peacefully transitioned the country from dictatorship to democracy. It was long believed that Portugal’s extensive pre-revolution experience of repressive right-wing rule had effectively inoculated it against far-right politics, but that assumption is now demonstrable outdated. An era of exceptionalism ended on 18 May, when the far-right Chega party secured 22.8 per cent of the vote and 60 parliamentary seats, becoming the country’s main opposition force.

This represents more than an electoral upset; it marks the collapse of five decades of democratic consensus and Portugal’s reluctant entry into the European mainstream of political polarisation. Chega could hold the balance of power. The centre-right Democratic Alliance, led by Prime Minister Luís Montenegro, won the most parliamentary seats, but fell far short of the 116 needed for a majority. Meanwhile, the Socialist Party, which governed from 2015 to 2024, suffered its worst defeat since the 1980s, relegated to third place by a party that’s only six years old.

Chega’s meteoric rise from just 1.3 per cent of the vote and one seat in 2019 to its role as today’s main opposition demonstrates how quickly political landscapes can shift when mainstream parties fail to address people’s fundamental concerns. The roots of the transformation lie in a toxic combination of economic pressure and political failure that has systematically eroded public confidence in the political establishment.

Portugal has endured three elections in under four years, a sign of its novel state of chronic instability. The immediate trigger for the latest election was the collapse of Montenegro’s government following a confidence vote, with opposition parties citing concerns over potential conflicts of interest involving his family business. This followed the previous Socialist government’s fall in November 2023 amid corruption investigations, creating a recurring cycle of scandal, government crisis and electoral upheaval.

The political turmoil unfolds against a backdrop of mounting social challenges that mainstream parties have failed to adequately address. Despite its economy growing by 1.9 per cent in 2024, well above the European Union average, Portugal faces a severe housing crisis that has become the defining issue for many voters, particularly those from younger generations. Portugal now has the worst housing access rates of all 38 OECD countries, with house prices more than doubling over the past decade.

In Lisbon, rents have jumped by 65 per cent since 2015, making the capital the world’s third least financially viable city due to its punishing combination of soaring housing costs and traditionally low wages. This crisis, driven by tourism, foreign investment and short-term rentals, has pushed property ownership beyond most people’s reach, creating widespread frustration with governments perceived as ineffective or indifferent to everyday struggles.

Immigration has provided another flashpoint. The number of legal migrants tripled from under half a million in 2018 to over 1.5 million in 2025. This rapid demographic change has fuelled populist narratives about uncontrolled migration and its alleged impact on housing and employment markets. It was precisely these grievances that Chega, led by former TV commentator André Ventura, expertly exploited.

As an outsider party untainted by association with the cycle of scandals and governmental collapses, Chega positioned itself as the defender of ‘western civilisation’ and channelled anti-establishment anger into electoral success. It combines promises to combat corruption and limit immigration with a defence of what it characterises as traditional Portuguese values, including through extreme criminal justice policies such as chemical castration for repeat sexual offenders.

Despite Ventura’s insistence that Chega simply advocates equal treatment without ‘special privileges’, the party’s ranks include white supremacists and admirers of former dictator António Salazar. Its openly racist approach to immigration and hostility towards women, LGBTQI+ people, Muslims and Roma people reflects a familiar far-right playbook that has proven successful across Europe. Chega has cultivated significant connections with Marine Le Pen’s National Rally in France, Germany’s Alternative for Germany, and Spain’s Vox party, and Ventura was among the European far-right leaders invited to Donald Trump’s inauguration.

Montenegro has so far refused to work with Chega, which he has publicly characterised as demagogic, racist and xenophobic – a rejection that may have inadvertently strengthened Chega’s anti-establishment credentials. However, the arithmetic of Portugal’s fractured parliament suggests that any significant policy initiatives will require either Socialist abstention or, more controversially, Chega support, creating new opportunities for far-right influence, particularly on criminal justice and immigration policies.

Portugal’s experience offers sobering evidence that far-right influence should no longer be viewed as a passing fad but rather as an established feature of contemporary European politics. The speed of the shift offers a stark reminder that no democracy is immune to the populist pressures reshaping the continent.

The question now is whether Portugal’s institutions can adapt to govern effectively in this new fractured landscape while preserving democratic values. Portugal’s civil society has an increasingly vital part to play in holding newly influential far-right politicians to account and offering collective responses to populist challenges.

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

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

  Source

‘We Are Witnessing Ecocide in West Papua, One of the World’s Richest Biodiversity Centres’

Posted on by admin

Active Citizens, Asia-Pacific, Biodiversity, Civil Society, Crime & Justice, Economy & Trade, Environment, Featured, Food and Agriculture, Headlines, Human Rights, Indigenous Rights, TerraViva United Nations

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.

GET IN TOUCH
Website
Instagram
Twitter

SEE ALSO
Indonesia: ‘The transmigration plan threatens Papua’s autonomy and indigenous ways of life’ CIVICUS Lens | Interview with Budi Hernawan 03.Feb.2025
Indonesia: ‘The international community should help amplify the voices of Indonesians standing up to corrupt elites’ CIVICUS Lens | Interview with Alvin Nicola 28.Sep.2024
Indonesia’s election spells trouble for civil society CIVICUS Lens 13.Mar.2024

  Source

A New Pope at a Pivotal Moment: Civil Society’s Hopes for Leo XIV

Posted on by admin

Armed Conflicts, Civil Society, Climate Change, Environment, Featured, Global, Headlines, Human Rights, LGBTQ, Migration & Refugees, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion

Credit: Eloisa Lopez/Reuters via Gallo Images

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.

Andrew Firmin is CIVICUS Editor-in-Chief, co-director and writer for CIVICUS Lens and co-author of the State of Civil Society Report.

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

  Source