A woman with her baby attends a UN-run awareness-raising session on gender-based violence at the One Stop Centre in Sominé Dolo Hospital in Mopti, Mali. Credit: UNFPA Mali/Amadou Maiga
In support of this civil society initiative the UN Secretary-General back in 2008 launched the campaign UNITE by 2030, which runs parallel to the 16 Days of Activism.
The statistics are staggering: nearly one in three women and girls worldwide will experience physical or sexual violence during their lifetime.
For at least 51,100 women in 2023, this violence escalated to femicide (homicide targeted at women) with over half committed by intimate partners or family members.
The agency championing women’s empowerment, UN Women, points out that femicides are the ultimate evidence that the systems and structures meant to protect women and girls are failing.
Women are not safe outside their homes either.
Public figures, including politicians, human rights defenders, and journalists, are often targeted by violence both online and offline, with some leading to fatal outcomes and intentional killings.
One alarming aspect of this issue is the prevalence of violence in conflict zones. In 2023, the United Nations reported a staggering 50 per cent increase in gender violence from the previous year.
From survivors to advocates
Women like Ukrainian activist Lyudmila Huseynova exemplify the harrowing reality of conflict-related sexual violence.
After enduring over three years of imprisonment and torture in a Russian prison, where she faced brutal physical abuse, “In that place, you become a person without rights,” she recalled of her torment in Izolyatsia prison, Ms. Huseynova’s resilience turned into activism.
Since her release in 2022, she has become an unwavering advocate for survivors, working with SEMA Ukraine to amplify the voices of those suffering from conflict-related sexual violence and to demand global attention to the atrocities faced by women and children in Ukraine.
Through her tireless efforts, Ms. Huseynova not only exposes the cruelty women endure but also leads efforts to secure justice and recovery for victims. “We will use every means to make their pain visible,” she emphasised.
What can we do?
While we may not all be activists, we all have a role in ending the abuse, says UN Women.
On an individual level, from supporting local organisations to advocating for stronger laws and supporting the women in our lives, everybody can make a difference.
Argentinian activist Iren Cari and founder of Women’s Forum for Equal Opportunities stressed the need to support women in political life and centre their voice: “We need funds to promote women’s participation – not only in public policy making, but also to participate in elections.”
UN Women emphasised that governments must enact laws to ensure accountability for perpetrators of gender-based violence, particularly through National Action Plans.
In parallel, funding women’s rights organizations is essential to support survivors and provide them with the necessary resources for recovery.
The 16 Days of Activism remind us that every action, no matter how small, counts in the fight to end gender-based violence, the agency stresses.
A family collecting hygiene kits from Maliha, in Eastern Ghouta, Rural Damascus, Syria. The distribution provided essential items to mostly Syrian and Lebanese families who had fled from the south of Lebanon. Credit: Norwegian Refugee Council
OSLO, Norway, Nov 13 2024 (IPS) – “The shockwaves from Israel’s ongoing and indiscriminate warfare on Gaza and Lebanon are reverberating across this entire region. Neither the horrific assault on Israeli civilians on 7 October 2023, nor the indiscriminate missiles launched by militant groups from Lebanon, can justify the degree of destruction on civilian lives and infrastructure in the region that I have witnessed in recent days.
We cannot wait another day for an end to this senseless violence. For the sake of children across the entire region, diplomacy must result in a sustainable ceasefire.
The people I have met in recent days–from those in Gaza City, to the displaced in eastern Lebanon, to those crossing into Syria–longed for peace so they could return home. Children spoke of how much they missed school and their friends, and parents wished for an end to the precarity and suffering that displacement has brought. The suffering of millions cannot begin to end until those in power push for peace and take action to end the violence.
What I witnessed in Gaza was a society shattered by advanced weaponry, with ongoing military strikes relentlessly impacting the civilian population. War has rules, and it is clear that the Israeli campaign has been conducted with utter disregard for international humanitarian law.
As Gaza has been reduced to rubble, Western leaders have largely stood by unwilling to apply the necessary pressure on the stronger party, Israel, to stop starving the population that they are besieging and bombarding.
In Lebanon, I met people who in just a couple of weeks have lost their homes, jobs and everything in between. They are now staying in almost bare shelters that offer neither protection nor privacy, in fear that the worst is yet to come. The temperature has dropped substantially. People are ill-prepared for what promises to be the coldest winter season for the hundreds of thousands displaced.
Travelling into Syria from Lebanon via the Masnaa border crossing, I saw the huge challenges facing those fleeing violence in Lebanon, exacerbated by vast craters in the road caused by Israeli strikes. Displaced people must be provided with safe passage, shelter, and services.
Those fleeing into Syria arrive in a country with deep, pre-existing economic and humanitarian crises. NRC is providing support to those arriving in Syria, people who took the impossible decision to leave their homes while facing bombardment, and left with only what they could carry.
The aid we and others are currently able to provide is totally insufficient for the needs our staff are seeing. We must be given the right to independently monitor how those who flee from Lebanon to Syria are treated. There must be robust international support to meet people forced to flee, and there must be a genuine, re-energised diplomatic effort from all sides, to halt violence against civilians.
My visit started in Gaza, continued in Lebanon, and finished in Syria, tracing the fallout of this now regional conflict. At each point, the people I met said they wished for only one thing: peace.
Jan Egeland is Secretary General of the Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC). This article follows his visit to Gaza, Lebanon, and Syria.
NRC teams are operating across Gaza, Lebanon and Syria providing essential services to displaced people. This includes items such as mattresses, blankets and hygiene kits as well as cash. We are also providing clean water and sanitation facilities as well as education to children.
ATLANTA, USA, Nov 11 2024 (IPS) – For religious, humanitarian, and scientific reasons, Israel’s increasingly apparent plan for the de facto colonization of the Northern Gaza Strip is a bad idea. When that program was rejected recently by Israel’s own Defense Minister Yoav Galant, he was summarily fired by Prime Minister Netanyahu.
However, the founding document of the worldwide Jewish community, the Torah, and especially the Decalogue, states plainly, “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife…or anything that is thy neighbors.” If religion still means anything to people in the modern nation of Israel, it should be clear that whatever belongs to others should be left alone and neither coveted nor stolen.
For obvious humanitarian reasons the one-sided bombing of Gaza must stop. After more than a year of an ongoing holocaust in Gaza, Israel’s relentless bombing has produced casualties totaling nearly 150,000 dead and wounded people, mostly civilians.
Now with UN sources reporting that starvation is setting in, people everywhere must demand that this racist, inhumane bloodshed stop immediately. Otherwise, international law has no force and the word “humane” has no meaning.
In scientific terms, the contamination of the water, soil, and air in northern Gaza from explosive dust, including Depleted Uranium, will clearly persist for decades, if not generations. That is neither good for the inhabitants if they manage to return to their homes, nor for the Jewish colonists if they should return to their previous colonies in the strip.
US bombing of Iraq two decades ago, especially in and around Basra, as much scientific and eyewitness testimony—including my own on the scene report—proves, has produced a plethora of birth defects.
The idea of some capitalists that Gaza will become a future Dubai—a wealthy trade zone that will be a veritable Las Vegas on the Mediterranean shore—is actually a good one. Geographically and commercially, Gaza is a potential Hong Kong.
The only thing wrong with the plan is the question of who will control this mighty future entrepot, the Palestinians, investors from the Gulf States and the West, or Israel? Answering that will take another century of bloodletting.
Far better that the United States, NATO, the United Nations, the International Court of Justice in the Hague or somebody other than HAMAS or the extreme right wing and increasingly bloodthirsty Likud government now in power in Jerusalem should deal with that issue and guarantee justice.
The ICJ/International Court of Justice, responsible governments everywhere, and especially the campus protesters and those on the streets of cities around the world, must keep chanting, “NO JUSTICE, NO PEACE!” “NO JUSTICE, NO PEACE!”
James E. Jennings, PhD is President of Conscience International and Executive Director of US Academics for Peace
Donald J. Trump, President of the United States of America, addresses the General Debate of the General Assembly’s 75th session September 2020. Credit: UN Photo/Rick Bajornas
NEW YORK, Nov 8 2024 (IPS) – On the day following the US election, UN Secretary General, Antonio Guterres issued a brief statement commending the people of the United States for their active participation in the democratic process. He wisely omitted to mention that the election of Donald J. Trump – who attempted to overturn the people’s mandate by inciting an insurrection in 2020 – is a major setback for the UN’s worldwide quest to advance human rights and the rule of law.
Trump is a self-avowed admirer of authoritarian strongmen like Russia’s Vladimir Putin and Hungary’s Viktor Orban who disdain international norms that the UN seeks to uphold. Unsurprisingly, questions posed to the UN Secretary General’s spokesperson, Stéphane Dujarric, in a press conference on November 6, ranged from what will be Trump’s response to the war in Ukraine to potential funding cuts that might come with the new US administration to whether the UN has contingency plans ready for when Trump takes office.
The US plays an outsized role in global affairs. Therefore, any changes in policy in Washington impact the whole world. As someone who bears responsibility for stewarding a global civil society alliance, it worries me what a second Trump presidency will unleash.
Even without Trump in power we are living in a world where wars are being conducted with complete disregard for the rules; corrupt billionaires are dictating public policy for their benefit; and greed induced environmental degradation is putting us on a path to climate catastrophe. Hard fought gains on gender justice are in danger of being rolled back.
The first Trump administration showed disdain for the UN Human Rights Council and pulled the US out of vital global commitments such as the Paris Agreement to combat climate change. It restricted support for civil society groups around the world and targeted those that sought to promote sexual and reproductive rights of women. Promotion of democracy and human rights are key pillars of US foreign policy.
It’s deeply concerning that when disinformation and misinformation have assumed pandemic level proportions, the majority of the US electorate have cast their vote in favour of a candidate who ran his campaign on divisive dog whistles, half-truths and outright lies. These tactics have deepened fissures in an already polarized United States.
Families countrywide were left devastated by Trump’s negligence and COVID denialism as president which resulted in tens of thousands of Americans dying of avoidable infections. His administration’s immigration detention and deportation policies instilled fear in minority communities. This time Trump has vowed to deport millions of people.
Trump’s stances on abortion rights have caused women immeasurable suffering in several US states that have introduced laws to ban the procedure. He has promised to accelerate harmful fossil fuel extraction and undoubtedly views gender justice advocates, environmental defenders and migrant rights activists as a threat his power.
Given the stated predilections of Trump and his advisors, opposition politicians, activists and journalists exposing corruption and rights violations are likely to be at risk of enhanced surveillance, intimidation and persecution by the new administration.
At the international level, Trump’s election casts a pall over efforts to ensure accountability for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocidal actions in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, Sudan and Ukraine due to his tacit support for authoritarian leaders in Israel, Russia and the United Arab Emirates, all of whom are fueling conflicts and causing havoc abroad. A future Trump administration could try to starve the UN of funding to erode the rules based international order, emboldening autocrats.
Even if things appear bleak today, it’s important to remember that there are hundreds and thousands of civil society activists and organisations around the world who remain steadfast in their resolve to celebrate diversity and promote justice and equality. To imagine the future we sometimes have to take heart from the past.
India’s freedom struggle, South Africa’s struggle against apartheid and the civil rights movement in the United States wasn’t won by authoritarian leaders but by brave and determined individuals united in solidarity and determined to resist oppression for as long as it takes.
There is a lesson here for civil society in the US that higher American ideals are worth standing up for and will outlive any sitting president.
Mandeep S. Tiwana is Interim Co-Secretary General of CIVICUS, the global civil society alliance. He also serves as CIVICUS representative to the United Nations.
In Khan Younis, thousands of people are fleeing for their lives again. Credit: UNRWA
UNITED NATIONS, Nov 8 2024 (IPS) – When the United Nations imposes sanctions or penalizes a member state – be it the General Assembly or the Human Rights Council – the resolutions are “non-binding” and often remain unimplemented.
But the Security Council resolutions are “binding” – and still openly violated by countries such as North Korea—because all these UN bodies have no means of implementing these resolutions, nor a standing army to forcibly enforce them. But they only carry moral weight.
The Council can also impose its own sanctions, mostly in economic, financial and trade sectors, against violators of its decisions.
And last week there was a move to impose arms sanctions against Israel – and rightly so, judging by the 43,000 plus, mostly Palestinian civilians, killed in Gaza largely with US-supplied weapons since October last year.
But how effective will this be since the strongest opposition will come from the US, an unyielding supporter of Israel, which will unhesitatingly use its veto power if the resolution comes before the Security Council?
Ambassador Anwarul K. Chowdhury, a former UN Under-Secretary-General and one-time Permanent Representative of Bangladesh to the United Nations, told IPS anything short of a real, permanent ceasefire would not create a pathway to end the perpetration of the ongoing genocidal aggression by Israel.
In this context, he said, the joint letter calling on all countries to stop the sale of arms and ammunition to Israel, signed by 52 countries and two UN-recognized multilateral organizations, is meaningfully forward-looking, and contains a purposeful objective of contributing to that “pathway”.
In fact, the Foreign Minister of Turkiye, whose country initiated the letter, asserted that “We must repeat at every opportunity that selling arms to Israel means participating in its genocide.”
“It would be argued rightfully that the United Nations and its apex body, the General Assembly have no powers to enforce such an arms embargo. The Security Council, the sole UN entity which can authorize an arms embargo and obligate the arms suppliers desist from sending arms to the areas of conflict, also becomes powerless if one of the P-5 uses the notorious veto”.
“However, I strongly believe that a General Assembly resolution following the call for the arms embargo to Israel would have a moral value which has its own merit. Despite the politics and power-play which is destroying the UN’s credibility and marginalizing its operational capacity to resolve conflicts, the arms embargo would highlight the principled position taken by the UN,” said Ambassador Chowdhury.
In a way, he pointed out, that would strengthen the Secretary-General’s efforts to promote the much-needed ceasefire.
In the aftermath of Israel’s declaration of the Secretary General as persona non-grata (PNG) and its extension of the attacks on UNIFIL in Lebanon, the General Assembly needs to show that its moral and normative role as envisaged in the UN Charter has not been cowed down by the politics of the frequently-used threat of veto, he declared.
Stephen Zunes, Professor of Politics and International Studies at the University of San Francisco, who has written extensively on the politics of the Security Council, told IPS: “This initiative reflects the view of the vast majority of the world’s governments and peoples and is consistent with imperatives of international humanitarian law, but given that the major arms supplier of Israel is a veto-wielding permanent member of the Security Council, it is unlikely to have much of an impact.”
Also problematic, he pointed out, is that some of the countries sponsoring the initiative, such as Russia and Saudi Arabia, have been guilty not only of similarly providing weapons to those engaging in war crimes but engaging in war crimes themselves.
Turkiye’s foreign minister Hakan Fidan said last week his country had submitted a letter to the United Nations, signed by 52 countries and two inter-governmental organizations, calling for a halt in arms deliveries to Israel.
“We have written a joint letter calling on all countries to stop the sale of arms and ammunition to Israel. We delivered this letter, which has 54 signatories, to the UN on November 1,” said Fidan, according to the Times of Israel.
“We must repeat at every opportunity that selling arms to Israel means participating in its genocide,” said Fidan, adding that the letter is “an initiative launched by Turkiye.”
Among the signatories were Saudi Arabia, Brazil, Algeria, China, Iran and Russia, plus the Arab League and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC),
Elaborating further, Ambassador Chowdhury said the UN should not forget that the UN’s International Court of Justice which determined that Israel’s occupation of the Gaza Strip and West Bank is illegal under international law. The judgment was followed by a General Assembly resolution last September, demanding Israel leave the occupied territories within a year.
“I am encouraged by the UN’s own 45 Human Rights Experts and Special Rapporteurs, who, driven by their conscience, forcefully called for a ‘permanent ceasefire, … an ‘arms embargo on all warring parties,’ and ‘the deployment of an international protective presence in the occupied Palestinian territory under the supervision of the UN.’ All these well-thought-out measures would only promote dialogue and diplomacy over death and destruction”.
The UN Secretary-General needs to endorse and welcome this call by his in-house experts and recommend to the General Assembly to do the same without any delay, he declared.
Back in April 2024, in a resolution adopted by 28 votes in favour, six against and 13 abstentions, the 47-member Human Rights Council backed a call “to cease the sale, transfer and diversion of arms, munitions and other military equipment to Israel, the occupying Power…to prevent further violations of international humanitarian law and violations and abuses of human rights”.
Presented by Pakistan on behalf of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, delegates heard that the resolution had also been motivated by the need to stop “egregious” human rights violations in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.
Co-sponsors of the text included Bolivia, Cuba and the State of Palestine, ahead of the vote which saw support from more than two dozen countries including Brazil, China, Luxembourg, Malaysia and South Africa, according to UN News.
Unlike the UN Security Council, Human Rights Council resolutions are not legally binding on States but carry significant moral weight, and in this instance is intended to increase diplomatic pressure on Israel as well as potentially influence national policy decisions.
Israel’s two largest arms sources, the United States and Germany, have resisted calls for an embargo on Israel, though each has been accused of withholding certain arms during the war.
In an October 2024 report, the Stockholm International Peace Institute (SIPRI) said in the past decade, Israel has greatly increased its imports of arms. SIPRI estimates that in the five-year period 2019–23, Israel was the world’s 15th largest importer of major arms, accounting for 2.1 per cent of global arms imports in the period. In 2009–13 it ranked only 47th.
Although only three countries supplied major arms to Israel in 2019–23, the United States, Germany and Italy, many others supplied military components, ammunition or services. The three other global major arms exporters among the top 10: the United Kingdom, France and Spain.
‘Endless nightmare’ of death and destruction in Gaza, UN officials tell Security Council. July 2024. Credit: UNRWA
GENEVA, Nov 4 2024 (IPS) – While the expansion of democracy is a key condition for peace, the Achilles’ heel of democracies is that their leaders are constrained by electoral calendars, forcing them to push for peace or delay, whereas autocracies can afford to play the long game to achieve the favorable outcomes they desire.
Take, for example, the current wars in Ukraine and the Middle East: U.S. leadership may be influenced by the approaching November elections, skewing policy decisions, while autocratic leaders of rival powers can be confident in their long-term tenure.
To be clear, this does not suggest that we should abolish democracy. Quite the opposite—more democracy and more bottom-up scrutiny of leaders are needed, as outlined below.
Short-termism lies at the heart of several misconceptions within Western democracies that complicate peacebuilding efforts. One such misconception is the “better the devil you know” mentality, which has long been used to justify support for brutal regimes in exchange for short-term gains.
From the Cold War to the present, global powers have backed dictators and militias, prioritizing strategic influence over human rights. For instance, Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi, once an international outcast, was quickly embraced by Western leaders after making some concessions.
However, such cynical realpolitik is not only morally wrong but counterproductive. Supporting autocrats for short-term diplomatic or economic gains only fuels anti-Western sentiment. Recent research shows that U.S. military aid to dubious regimes has often backfired, leading to more, not fewer, terrorist attacks from those nations. Instead of supporting despots, Western nations should focus on promoting long-term peace through jobs, representation, and security.
These are the true foundations of stability, and investing in them is far more effective than cutting deals with dictators. In the end, helping to build peaceful societies is a far better investment than propping up corrupt regimes.
Short-termism has also frequently prompted leaders to prioritize quick cash transfers—often subject to embezzlement—over policies that enhance long-term economic productivity and resilience in fragile countries. The belief that financial aid can “buy” peace is a common misconception.
Peace cannot simply be bought; it must be “invested in” through the development of human capital and productive capacities. Large sums of money, like oil revenues, often fuel corruption and conflict in unstable states. Countries such as Venezuela, Sudan and Nigeria have suffered from the “resource curse,” where abundant resources become a source of instability rather than prosperity.
Similarly, foreign aid, when poorly managed, can have unintended negative consequences. Studies indicate that U.S. food aid can sometimes exacerbate conflict in recipient regions, as armed groups divert resources for their own benefit. This is not to say that Western democracies should abandon aid. Instead, they should focus on smarter investments in education and healthcare, which reduce incentives for violence.
Human capital cannot be stolen, and improvements in education and health increase employment opportunities, diminishing the motivation for conflict. Investing in people is the best path to sustainable peace.
A third common misconception in conflict resolution is that winning over “hearts and minds” should come first, with security following later. This is again driven by short-termism, as providing services may be quicker than establishing security. The theory is that by providing amenities and increasing local support, tensions will ease. However, this approach rarely works in practice.
When people’s basic safety is at risk, they prioritize security over services or political ideals. Research in places like Iraq shows that security and basic infrastructure must be established first—without them, no other policy can succeed. For instance, the Dayton Agreement in Bosnia successfully ended a brutal war and prevented its resurgence, largely thanks to international peacekeepers.
Offering security guarantees to all parties is essential for bringing armed factions to the negotiating table and laying the groundwork for lasting peace. Without security, efforts to win hearts and minds are doomed to fail.
After examining these misconceptions that jeopardize peace efforts, my new book, The Peace Formula: Voice, Work, and Warranties, Not Violence, outlines the solid fundamentals for achieving sustainable peace in the long term, based on hundreds of empirical studies.
First, there is a growing body of evidence that a democratic voice makes a crucial difference. When citizens have political rights, civil liberties, and their preferences are considered, their incentives for violent attacks on the state diminish.
Every regime in history has eventually felt the need to extend political rights or collapsed. Even autocratic Rome was forced to extend citizenship beyond Italy to survive for a few more centuries. Long-term stability and peace are impossible when citizens are treated as slaves.
Similarly, a strong and productive economy is another prerequisite for lasting peace. Having a fulfilling, well-paid job makes it much less tempting to join a warlord or enlist as a volunteer in a brutal war. These higher opportunity costs of abandoning work for warfare form the second pillar of sustainable peace and stability.
Finally, security guarantees are crucial. When the state lacks a monopoly on legitimate violence over its territory, power vacuums typically give rise to warlords, organized crime, and insurgents that challenge state authority. Consider the rise of the mafia in historical Sicily or the situation in Somalia today. Security is one of humanity’s basic needs, and if a state is too weak to provide it, UN peacekeeping troops must be ready to step in when invited.
If the academic literature increasingly provides clear answers on what needs to be done, why then are the components of a peace formula not consistently implemented? While we can point to successful examples of post-conflict reconstruction, such as Germany and Japan after World War II, the list of failed states and aborted democratization efforts is equally long.
The problem can be reduced to the concept of “smart idealism.” It isn’t rocket science. The issue with “smart idealism” is twofold. First, the “smart” aspect is relatively new. Many of the scientific insights underpinning the above arguments—such as the failure of supporting bad regimes and the importance of human capital—are based on cutting-edge research. Only recently has empirical evidence shown that cash handouts can backfire and that “winning hearts and minds” is futile without basic security.
Second, the “idealism” aspect is a tough sell. Peacebuilding is a long-term commitment that requires significant investments. After World War II, the Allies transformed Germany, Japan, and Italy into functioning democracies, but it came at a steep financial cost. The fear of another world war motivated these efforts.
Today, however, few political leaders are willing to commit such resources to nations like Somalia, where the political payoff is uncertain, and re-election prospects at home may be harmed. Additionally, most politicians operate within short-term electoral cycles, bringing us back to the issue of “short-termism.”
Their incentives favor projects with immediate returns, not long-term peace investments that would benefit their successors. In the short term, shady deals with despots may seem politically advantageous, even if they prove disastrous later.
Are these roadblocks insurmountable, or can we do something about them? Yes, we can! Rather than relying solely on elected officials to make the right choices, civil society must apply pressure, advocating for democracy globally. Ordinary citizens have historically driven positive change—think of the movements that dismantled South African apartheid.
Despite global setbacks in democracy over the past decade, fighting for sound, evidence-based policies remain essential. Democracies may falter, but they have an extraordinary capacity to recover, drawing on the remnants of past democratic capital, as Argentina’s history demonstrates. As Abraham Lincoln famously noted, “Those who shall have tasted actual freedom I believe can never be slaves, or quasi slaves again.”
Dominic Rohner is a globally recognized authority on armed conflict and peacebuilding. He serves as Professor of Economics at the Geneva Graduate Institute, where he holds the prestigious André Hoffmann Chair in Political Economics and Governance, and is also a Professor at the University of Lausanne. He holds a PhD in Economics from the University of Cambridge, and his pioneering work has earned multiple international awards and accolades.
