Still Hopes for a Future Plastic Treaty– But it Won’t be Easy

Posted on by admin

Civil Society, Climate Change, Environment, Global, Headlines, Sustainable Development Goals, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion

A 30-foot- high monument entitled Turn off the plastics tap by Canadian activist and artist Benjamin von Wong was exhibited at the UN Environment Assembly in Nairobi, Kenya, in 2022. Credit: UNEP/Cyril Villemain

KATHMANDU, Nepal, Jan 20 2025 (IPS) – The last few weeks of 2024 were a disappointment for those who strongly believed that planet Earth is in need of bold actions.

First, there were the frustration stemming from what could be defined at minimum as unconvincing outcomes of both COP 16 on Biodiversity and COP 29 on Climate.

Then all hope was resting on a successful conclusion of the 5th and final round of negotiations held in Busan to reduce plastic pollutions, at the Inter-governmental Negotiating Committee INC-5. (25 November -1 December 2024)

Instead also in this case, at the end, it was a letdown because no consensus had emerged on some of the key elements of the negotiations. Yet, flopping this more gloomy and dark view, I am learning that activists for a strong treaty are not giving up.

They are not ready to concede defeat and, rightly so. The fight must go on.

At least at Busan, the gap between the parties involved in the discussions came at the fore, providing clarity on their own desired outcomes, this time, each showing their cards, without hesitancy. On the one hand, a diverse coalition of more progressive nations.

Within it, both members of the Global South and a part of the Global North worked very hard to press for the best possible outcome, a treaty that would also include targets to reduce plastic production, especially the most nefarious type of it.

On the other hand, governments representing strong petro-chemical establishments had the overt mission to trample and block any attempts of reducing plastic production. Their mantras were conveniently focused on recycling and circularity as the best remedy to reduce plastic pollution.

To have a better assessment of INC-5, I approached the Plastic Pollution Coalition, a US civil society organization advocating an ambitious treaty. The group has also pressurized Washington to take a bolder stance in the fight against plastic pollution.

The resulting conversation with members of the Coalition, carried out via e-mails, was also an opportunity to identify the next goalposts for future negotiations and what scenarios might emerge in the months ahead.

They key messages are that, despite the final outcomes of the negotiations were not what many had hoped for, those, who want bold actions towards reducing plastic pollution, should not despair.

First of all, my interest was on assessing the level of disillusionment among activists advocating for a strong and ambitious treaty.

“Plastic pollutes throughout its existence, and a strong globally binding treaty is critical for a healthy future for humanity. While we are disappointed with the outcome of INC-5—little to no progress on the treaty text—we remain hopeful and are very inspired by the growing collaboration and efforts of a majority of ambitious countries” said Dianna Cohen, Co-Founder and CEO of the Plastic Pollution Coalition.

The commitment from the members of the Coalition is not diminished but rather it is growing ad with it also a sense of optimism.

“The fight is far from over. Talks will resume in 2025, and Plastic Pollution Coalition and allies continue to call on the US government to adopt a stronger position in the treaty negotiations” said Jen Fela, Vice President, Programs and Communications at the Plastic Pollution Coalition.

“The work won’t be easy. While necessary to protect the planet and human health, there will likely be even less support for a strong and legally binding global treaty by the incoming US administration”.

“The good news is that the talks in Busan demonstrated that more and more countries are willing to be bold and tell the world to get on board with what UN Environment Programme Executive Director Inger Andersen called a ‘once-in-a-planet opportunity’ for a treaty that will end the plastics age once and for all”, Fela further stressed.

But what next? Balancing realism with ambition, what activists should aim in the next negotiations?

“We will keep pushing for a treaty that caps plastic production and prioritizes health, centers frontline and fence-line communities, acknowledges the rights of Indigenous Peoples and rights holders, restricts problematic plastic products and chemicals of concern, and supports non-toxic reuse systems”, Cohen, the Co-Founder and CEO of the Coalition told me.

“We are proud to stand with our incredible community of allies and continue our work toward a more just, equitable, regenerative world free of plastic pollution and its toxic impacts”,

Indeed, signs of hope are not misplaced”.

“Despite Member States being unable to reach a deal at INC-5, there was promising ambition and growing collaboration among the majority of countries, and we’re hopeful for the additional round of talks at INC-5.2 next year”, she further added.

“Ultimately, a delay is better than settling for a weak agreement that fails to meaningfully address the problem now, and the silver lining is that in the meantime, we can gain even more support for a strong treaty that cuts plastic pollution”.

Moreover, it is important to remember that despite there was no agreement, a new consensus is emerging.

“Despite pressure from a handful of petrostates, the majority of countries are rallying together for a strong treaty, with more than 100 countries backing Panama’s proposal to reduce plastic production, 95 supporting legally binding targets to regulate harmful chemicals, and over 120 nations calling for a treaty with robust implementation measures” reads a summary of INC-5 published by the Coalition.

A new coalition got cemented in Busan with countries like Panama and Rwanda working with European nations and others in the so called High Ambition Coalition to end Plastic Pollution.

I also wanted to better understand the key elements that can either make a future treaty at least acceptable for those advocating for plastic reductions and which are the “red lines” for them.

“Signs of a weak Plastics Treaty include voluntary measures to address plastic pollution, failure to commit to a significant global reduction in the total production of plastics, failing to identify and cease production of “chemicals of concern” known to harm frontline communities—a major environmental justice issue, a focus on recycling plastic as a solution, and omitting a full and strong range of actions that address plastic pollution throughout its endless toxic existence—from the extraction of its fossil fuel ingredients through plastic and plastic chemical production, shipping, use, and disposal” explained Erica Cirino, Communication Manager at the Coalition.

“The key is a mandated and significant reduction in plastic and plastic chemical production”.

“Signs of a strong treaty include mandatory caps on plastic and plastic chemical production, identification and further regulation of especially hazardous chemicals of concern, and including a full and strong range of actions that work to end plastic pollution throughout its endless toxic existence, starting with the extraction of its fossil fuel ingredients through plastic and plastic chemical production, shipping, use, and disposal” she further said.

“A binding commitment that reduces especially “problematic” plastic products and chemicals of concern would not be acceptable without a cap in overall production. All plastics pollute, and all plastic production must be reduced”, Cirino further explained.

The point raised by Cirino is one of the most contentious. “Those of special concern must especially be eliminated and regulated, but taking action to mitigate their harm should only be expedited—and not stand in place of mitigating harm of all plastics”.

Would it be still acceptable, in case there will be no breakthrough at all in the next round of negotiations, the most progressive nations, say the members of The High Ambition Coalition to End Plastic Pollution, would come up with their own, alternative binding agreement, even if not a fully-fledged global treaty as we are envisioning now?

Could this “extreme” and until now unimaginable ‘last” option make sense even if plastic polluters would continue with their “business as usual approach”?

“It’s certainly not an ideal solution, as plastic pollution is a global issue perpetuated by a global set of governments; investors; and industrial players, activities and infrastructure. That said, it potentially would be better than nothing if more progressive nations were to devise their own binding agreement, so long as it focused on curbing plastic pollution”, Cirino shared.

“The main issue is, many of the biggest plastic producers in the world (namely, the US and China) are absent from the high-ambition talks for now. It’s crucial that levels of plastic production drop globally. It would be all for naught if some countries reduce production, only for other nations to increase it”.

Meanwhile having some countries going “solo” carries risks and these they are crystal clear.

Indeed, there are palpable concerns in places like Europe on this regard.

There, the plastic lobbying is worried that a decline of plastic production in Europe means that other nations like China are taking advantage by ramping up their production.

We are in a conundrum. At this moment, I can’t imagine how the petro states will change their key negotiating positions. “If passed, hopefully an agreement among progressive nations would push other nations to also reduce their plastic production or, such an agreement may not help at all” concluded Cirino.

Simone Galimberti writes about the SDGs, youth-centered policy-making and a stronger and better United Nations.

IPS UN Bureau

  Source

UN Claims to Strengthen Battle Against Racism in Workplace—Amid Reservations

Posted on by admin

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

The UN reflects on its progress addressing racism within its Secretariat as it approaches its 80th anniversary, highlighting the impact of the Anti-Racism Office since its inception in 2023

UN Staff Honour Colleagues Fallen in Gaza. Credit: UN Photo

UNITED NATIONS, Jan 16 2025 (IPS) – As the United Nations plans to commemorate its 80th anniversary later this year, it is “reflecting on the steps taken to advance implementation of the Secretary-General’s Strategic Action Plan for addressing racism in the UN Secretariat.

The UN’s Anti-Racism Office, which was created in 2023, has hosted several online events that reached over 13,500 participants and generated 2,000 comments, and welcomed 2,700 visitors to its iSeek page (accessible only by staffers)—possibly a reflection of the rising complaints and concerns of UN staffers.

In a circular to staffers, the Office claims it has “collaborated closely with other UN entities and a growing global network of Anti-Racism Advocates, to foster a workplace that is safe, inclusive and equitable for all UN personnel, regardless of their race”

Together with the Office of Human Resources (OHR) and the Department of Operational Support (DOS), the Anti-Racism Office has been working on increasing fairness in recruitment processes through projects such as strengthening “blind hiring” practices and requiring diversity on hiring panels, which will be fully implemented in 2025.

Ian Richards, former President of the Coordination Committee of International Staff Unions and Associations (CCISUA), representing over 60,000 UN staffers, told IPS some of the practices being proposed, such as “blind hiring” and “mixed panels”, make sense. The unions have been requesting this for years. Although defining racial diversity in a legal manner may prove challenging.

At the same time, he pointed out, there are many competing Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, (DEI) initiatives right now: Anti-racism, gender parity, disability inclusion, LGBTQIA, regional diversity, age diversity.

Each has their own office, coordinator, focal point network, action plan, policy, task force, ICSC agenda item, quota system or communication strategy. And each response to a legitimate grievance, said Richards, an economist specializing in digital business environments at the Geneva-based UNCTAD.

However, some of these conflict with each other, and HR officers and staff in general are finding it a bit hard to keep up.

“For any of this to be really effective, there needs to be some consolidation and prioritisation. Hopefully the SG can have a strategic think about this so we have the best outcome for all”, he declared.

A survey by the UN Staff Union in New York in 2021 was equally revealing.

According to the findings, 59% of the respondents said “they don’t feel the UN effectively addresses racial justice in the workplace, while every second respondent noted they don’t feel comfortable talking about racial discrimination at work”.

Meanwhile, the UN Secretariat in New York, faltered ingloriously, as it abruptly withdrew its own online survey on racism, in which it asked staffers to identify themselves either as “black, brown, white., mixed/multi-racial, and any other”.

But the most offensive of the categories listed in the survey was “yellow” – a longstanding Western racist description of Asians, including Japanese, Chinese and Koreans.

A non-apologetic message emailed to staffers read: “The United Nations Survey on Racism has been taken offline and will be revised and reissued, taking into account the legitimate concerns expressed by staff.”

Meanwhile the UN Special Adviser for Addressing Racism in the Workplace, Mojankunyane Gumbi of South Africa, has been “actively visiting different UN duty stations worldwide, holding town hall meetings with staff and leadership from various departments to discuss and address issues related to racism within the organization”.

The Special Adviser, who as appointed January 2023, has been providing “strategic advice to the Secretary-General on addressing racism and racial discrimination, as well as oversee the implementation of the long-term Strategic Action Plan adopted by the Organization in 2022 to address racism in the workplace.

Following the adoption of the Strategic Action Plan, every Secretariat entity was asked to develop and implement its own action plan, while an Implementation Steering Group under the leadership and stewardship of the Special Adviser will monitor and guide corporate-level actions to implement the Strategic Action Plan.

An Anti-Racism Team has been established to support the Special Adviser.

Dr Palitha Kohona, a former Chief of the UN Treaty Section, told IPS the Secretary-General’s Strategic Action Plan is a welcome initiative.

The UN has always prided itself of its inclusive approach to hiring but, in reality, many staff harbour, often publicly unexpressed but privately discussed, reservations that race and gender influence hiring and promotions, he said.

“Unfortunately, it is widely felt that political considerations influence recruitment and promotions. Some countries have made lobbying a fine art, said Dr Kohona a former Permanent Representative of Sri Lanka to the UN, and until recently Ambassador to the People’s Republic of China

Some of those who were responsible for staff management, he pointed out, tended to be influenced by considerations that were not necessarily consistent with the clearly stated principles of the United Nations, especially in sensitive areas, often conceding to external pressures.

“While equitable geographical distribution must be a guiding principle, staff recruitment, promotions and placements must be done transparently and with due emphasis on merit. Today, this is not too difficult a goal to achieve given the ready availability of talent from most countries of the world. In fact, the steady flow of talent from developing countries to the developed world is an acknowledged reality.”

The goals of the Organisation will be best served if recruitment, placements and promotions occur transparently and relevant information is disseminated as widely as possible through the media, in particular, the social media, he pointed out.

Vacancies, he said, should be advertised in the languages widely used/accessed by applicants around the world. The offices processing applications should also be constituted by geagraphically representative officers.

“The UN must also proactively address the concern that the recruitment of General Staff tends to be biased in favour of certain nationalities,” he declared.

Speaking strictly off-the-record, a senior UN staffer told IPS the official statement outlines the Anti-Racism Office’s efforts within the UN Secretariat, but it lacks a critical examination of the concrete impact of these initiatives.

While the creation of the office and its collaboration with other UN entities is a positive step, there is limited transparency regarding the actual outcomes of these actions. The implementation of “blind hiring” and diversity on hiring panels are mentioned as key initiatives, however, the statement does not provide any data, including status quo, or specific examples showing how these changes have improved or will improve fairness or representation within the Secretariat, he said.

“To effectively evaluate progress, it is essential to highlight measurable results and ongoing challenges in these areas together with the baseline data.

Additionally, while the Special Adviser’s visits and town halls with staff are commendable, the statement fails to address whether the concerns raised during these engagements by staff have led to substantive changes or policy adjustments”.

The numbers of participants and visitors to online events and iSeek are notable, but without demonstrating how these interactions have directly influenced policy changes, decision-making or led to tangible outcomes, the impact remains unclear, he noted.

“It would be more effective to provide specific examples of changes that have resulted from the efforts by the Anti-Racism Office such as improve hiring diversity, more inclusive workplace policies, or shifts in organizational culture, in particular, how the mandate of the Anti-Racism Office has impacted in addressing racism and racial discrimination within the UN”.

To truly advance its mission of fostering an inclusive and equitable workplace, he said, the Anti-Racism Office must go beyond activity metrics such as the number of participants to its virtual events, but focus on outcomes in order to achieve the goals and objectives set in the Secretary-General’s Strategic Action Plan, that was launched four years ago in 2021.

In a circular to UN staffers, Catherine Pollard Under-Secretary-General for Management Strategy, Policy and Compliance Chair of the Task Force on Addressing Racism and Promoting Dignity for All in the United Nations Secretariat, said “the Secretary-General has called upon us to condemn racism wherever we see it, without reservation, hesitation or qualification”.

“This includes looking into our own hearts and minds. The global outcry in 2020 caused us all to look inward and recognize that, in order to fight racism, we have to be proactively anti-racist.”

“As an organization, we were founded on the principles of the dignity and worth of the human person, proclaiming the right of everyone to enjoy all human rights and fundamental freedoms, without distinctions of race, colour or national origin. We have always recognized the prevalence of racism and racial discrimination in society and played a key role in supporting Member States in the development of legal instruments to address this scourge”.

“I want to urge all personnel, of every race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin, to come together in the spirit of human decency and collegiality to educate ourselves on how racism may operate in society and in the workplaces of the Organization. I encourage all of you to participate in the ongoing dialogue and awareness campaigns to gain insight into how racism manifests at the workplace and how we can prevent it and support those who experience such behaviour.”

Ultimately, progress in addressing racism and racial discrimination will require unwavering commitment from senior leaders and the full participation of United Nations personnel to ensure that everyone has an equal opportunity to participate in the work of the Organization and is treated with respect and dignity. Let us stand in solidarity against racism, she declared.

IPS UN Bureau Report

  Source

Carter’s Virtue Trumps Mendacity

Posted on by admin

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

Opinion

Credit: White House

ATLANTA, Georgia, Jan 3 2025 (IPS) – The fireplace in the State Dining Room of the White House that says, “May none but honest and wise men ever rule under this roof.” President John Adams wrote that in a letter to his wife Abigail in 1800.

Jimmy Carter was by all accounts a wise, just, and decent man—a man of deep religious faith, who was also circumspect—some may say old fashioned—about his rhetoric.

He was refreshingly candid in using the country-boy phrase “I’ll whip his ass!” against Democratic primary opponent Sen. Edward Kennedy. Most reporters in that era considered it too harsh or nearly obscene, so instead, they wrote, “I’ll whip his donkey!”

Carter was honest. When asked by a reporter amid stories of the Kennedy brothers’ sexual indulgences, if he had ever had lust in his heart, he responded straightforwardly, “Yes.” That’s something no other politician would ever do. But it was easy for Carter to admit because he followed the Christian and Calvinist doctrine that “We are all sinners.”

Historians view his administration as a watershed in the civil rights struggle, especially in the South. As president he negotiated the first ever peace agreement between Israel and the Arabs. In his post-presidential years, he made a worldwide impact as a humanitarian.

Civic virtue must be faithful to the original concept of American nationhood—favoring citizens ahead of government. Liberty and justice are the watchwords of democracy, not blind obedience to politicians.

George Washington said, “There exists an indissoluble union between virtue and happiness.” Lincoln advised “Malice toward none…charity for all…firmness in the right.” Carter followed these sentiments at his inauguration with a pledge from the Biblical Prophet Micah: “Do justly, love mercy, walk humbly.”

There are two ways of recognizing people as honest and wise—by their words and by their deeds. Carter told the truth straight out—even if it was inconvenient or might hurt him. His policies were based on simple fairness, especially in his efforts to overcome the endemic racism of the Old South.

By contrast, President-elect Trump is famous for the lies and invective-filled slander constantly dripping from his lips: “When somebody hurts you, just go after them as viciously and as violently as you can…. When somebody screws you, screw them back in spades.” Trump’s brand, he said, means, “Power is the only true value.”

We teach our kids differently. “Be nice,” we always say. Sesame Street TV and First Grade teachers call out children for “Courtesy Lacking.” Why can’t we demand as much from our leaders?

Trump is a symptom of the ills of our society, not the cause. Today most of us tolerate curses and obscenities that would have scandalized our grandmothers. Trump is simply riding the crest of a flood of indecency that already exists among the public.

Let’s bring back civic virtue. Jimmy Carter may be the best example of personal rectitude among US leaders in our lifetimes. Let him be your model—not the empty, sleazy suit that is soon to be the next occupant of the White House.

James E. Jennings PhD is President of Conscience International.

IPS UN Bureau

  Source

A Renewed Vision for Prosperity for Landlocked Developing Countries

Posted on by admin

Civil Society, Climate Change, Climate Change Justice, Development & Aid, Environment, Featured, Global, Headlines, Human Rights, Humanitarian Emergencies, Least Developed Countries, Natural Resources, Small Island Developing States, Sustainable Development Goals, TerraViva United Nations, Trade & Investment

Opinion

OHRLLS Office Banner. Credit: The United Nations Office of the High Representative for the Least Developed Countries, Landlocked Developing Countries and Small Island Developing States (UN-OHRLLS)

UNITED NATIONS, Jan 3 2025 (IPS) – Over 570 million people live in the world’s 32 Landlocked Developing Countries (LLDCs), spanning across Africa, Asia, Europe, and Latin America. These nations face unique and complex development challenges. Their lack of direct access to the sea, geographical isolation, limited infrastructure, and difficulty integrating into global trade and value chains hinder sustainable development and progress.

The lingering impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, rising vulnerability to external shocks, climate change, and mounting debt burdens have further compounded these challenges, eroding progress achieved under the last developmental roadmap for LLDCs—the Vienna Programme of Action.

However, a pivotal moment for LLDCs is at hand. In the lead-up to the Third United Nations Conference on LLDCs (LLDC3), to be held next year, the international community has adopted a new Programme of Action (PoA) to guide LLDCs’ development from 2025 to 2035.

UN Under-Secretary-General (USG) and High Representative, cr. Credit: OHRLLS

A new decade of opportunity and progress

The new PoA is a landmark achievement designed to address the structural challenges of LLDCs and accelerate their socio-economic integration into the global economy. This vision focuses on five priority areas critical to transforming LLDCs into resilient and competitive economies:

Structural Transformation and Science, Technology, and Innovation (STI)

Economic diversification is crucial for LLDCs. Their dependence on a narrow range of commodities leaves them highly vulnerable to external shocks. The new PoA prioritizes value-added industries and leveraging technology and innovation to help LLDCs integrate more effectively into global value chains and build more resilient economies.

Digital connectivity, which is pivotal for sustainable development, is also an important focus of the PoA. In 2023, only 39% of LLDC populations used the internet, compared to the global average of 67%. The PoA aims to create regional digital platforms for peer learning and capacity building while increasing support to LLDCs to leverage technology for sustainable growth.

Trade, Trade Facilitation, and Regional Integration

Trade drives economic growth, yet LLDCs account for just 1.1% of global merchandise exports. High trade costs—averaging 30% more than coastal countries—significantly hamper their competitiveness.

The new PoA highlights LLDCs’ interest in establishing a dedicated work programme at the World Trade Organization (WTO) to address their unique needs. It also recommends developing a high-level panel of experts to examine the application of existing international laws on freedom of transit for LLDCs, ensuring that LLDCs can engage in international trade under fairer conditions.

Transit, Transport, and Connectivity

Transport infrastructure is a critical link for LLDCs to global markets. Bridging the current gap—nearly 200,000 km of paved roads and over 46,000 km of railways—will require over half a trillion dollars.

To address this, the PoA proposes an Infrastructure Investment Finance Facility (IIFF) for LLDCs to mobilize resources for sustainable transport infrastructure, thereby reducing trade costs and enhancing connectivity.

Enhancing Adaptive Capacity and Resilience to Climate Change and Disasters

LLDCs face significant vulnerabilities to climate-related disasters. Between 2012 and 2022, 447 such events affected 170 million people in LLDCs—double the global average.

The PoA emphasizes climate-resilient infrastructure, sustainable agriculture, and improved access to climate finance. It also notes LLDCs’ interest in developing a dedicated work programme under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

Lastly, but more importantly,

Means of Implementation

The success of the new Programme of Action depends on robust means of implementation, including adequate resources, technical support, and strong partnerships. The PoA calls for increased development assistance and emphasizes the role of public-private partnerships in realizing its ambitious goals.

Driving Progress through Partnerships – a call for global solidarity and action

The adoption of the new Programme of Action is more than a commitment—it is a renewed call to action. Global solidarity is essential to provide LLDCs with the financial, technical, and capacity-building support they need. Strengthened partnerships and concerted efforts will enable LLDCs to leverage their potential and contribute meaningfully to the global economy.

The upcoming LLDC3 Conference in 2025 will serve as a critical platform to build this momentum and strengthen international collaboration and multi-sectoral partnerships for the implementation of the PoA.

With political resolve, enhanced partnerships, and tangible actions, LLDCs can emerge as dynamic contributors to the global economy, charting a path toward sustainable prosperity over the coming decade.

Ms. Rabab Fatima, United Nations Under-Secretary-General and High Representative for the Least Developed Countries, Landlocked Developing Countries and Small Island Developing States.

IPS UN Bureau

  Source

Remembering Jimmy Carter: a UN Perspective

Posted on by admin

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

Opinion

Carter was a man of decency and integrity who devoted his life to promoting peace and democracy. Credit: Courtesy Kul Chandra Gautam

 
Former US President Jimmy Carter, a leader of impeccable integrity and decency who devoted his life to promoting peace and democracy worldwide. I recall his contribution to the peace process in Nepal and his leadership in combatting deadly diseases in Africa.
 
Jimmy Carter enthusiastically supported the child survival campaign led by UNICEF. He had nominated Jim Grant to be the Executive Director of UNICEF and said that it was one of the most important decisions of his presidency.

KATHMANDU, Nepal, Jan 2 2025 (IPS) – Former American President Jimmy Carter was a man of peace and principles. He presided over a tumultuous period in American history from 1977 to 1981, working hard to restore trust in government after the Watergate scandal and the divisive era of the Vietnam War. He brokered a landmark peace deal between Israel and Egypt and negotiated a historic treaty to hand over the Panama Canal to Panama.

Carter, a champion of human rights both in the US and around the world, passed away at 100 on December 29, 2024.

More than any recent American president, Carter pressed gently but firmly on autocratic regimes worldwide to respect human rights and the rule of law. When he led the country with immense moral authority, it encouraged many human rights advocates, while dictators worried about the US sanctions.

At home, Carter got many progressive legislations passed in areas of consumer protection, welfare reforms and the appointment of women and minorities in America’s judiciary. However, he had difficulties managing the US economy, the Iran hostage crisis and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. And in the 1980 Presidential election, when he lost his bid to Ronald Reagan, his active political career came to an end.

Kul Chandra Gautam

But he didn’t retire to a comfortable life, rather, he embarked on a noble mission as one of the world’s highly respected elder statesmen, deeply committed to promoting democracy and human rights. He founded the Carter Center with a motto of “Waging Peace, Fighting Disease and Building Hope”.

With his team, he worked tirelessly to help resolve conflicts, monitor elections and improve human health through campaigns to eliminate several neglected diseases afflicting the poorest people worldwide, particularly in Africa.

“For his decades of untiring effort to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts, to advance democracy and human rights and to promote economic and social development,” Carter won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2002.

Links with UNICEF and Nepal

Carter greatly admired UNICEF Executive Director James Grant and strongly supported the UNICEF-led global child survival and development campaign. Further, the organisation was a key partner in the Carter-led global campaign to eradicate a debilitating disease called dracunculiasis or Guinea-worm disease.

My first substantive meeting with Carter took place on August 3, 1995, at an event in Washington, DC, organised jointly by the Carter Center, USAID, WHO and UNICEF to mark the 95 percent reduction in Guinea worm cases worldwide and to recommit to its total eradication. I had a long and fruitful discussion with Carter on strengthening our collaboration in the global campaign to eradicate Guinea-worm disease.

In February 2004, I joined President Carter and WHO Director-General JW Lee on a 3-day field visit to observe and advocate for Guinea-worm eradication in Ghana. I learned about Carter’s humble personality, deep commitment to many worthy causes and impressive advocacy skills.

In our informal interactions, we often talked about Nepal.

Carter’s involvement in Nepal

Carter visited Nepal twice to observe Nepal’s Constituent Assembly Elections. He advised Nepali leaders, including the Election Commission, based on his worldwide experience and credibility in observing elections and conflict resolution. Over the years, the Carter Center produced several reports on Nepal dealing with issues related to the peace process, challenges in drafting Nepal’s Constitution and other important issues of social justice and equity.

I instinctively supported Carter’s noble efforts to promote peace, democracy and development. However, like everybody else, Carter was human and fallible, and some aspects of the Carter Center’s reports on Nepal were flawed.

In particular, Carter’s hasty verdict that Nepal’s first Constituent Assembly election was free, fair and peaceful ignored the fact that there was an unusually high degree of intimidation in many rural constituencies. The non-Maoist parties’ candidates were prevented from campaigning, and voters were threatened with physical violence for weeks preceding the actual voting.

There were well-intentioned but inaccurate analyses of Nepal’s socio-political dynamics by the Carter Center, the International Crisis Group, and even the United Nations. In their effort to appear “balanced and even-handed”, they gave the undue benefit of the doubt to the progressive-sounding rhetoric of the Maoists, ignoring their violent and corrupt practices.

Carter witnessed the insincerity and duplicity of the Maoists when they initially welcomed the 2013 election for the second Constituent Assembly but then denounced it as rigged and unfair when the results showed that they had suffered a humiliating loss.

Unlike during the first CA election, Carter took the necessary time to analyse the second CA election better. He left somewhat sobered by a deeper understanding of the Maoists’ opportunistic and undemocratic nature.

A man of faith and integrity

Jimmy Carter was a deeply religious and spiritual man who often turned to his faith during his political career. But as a progressive man and defender of human rights and gender equality, he found himself at odds with his Southern Baptist Church when it opposed gender equality, citing a few selected verses from the Bible that women must be “subservient” to their husbands and must not be allowed to serve as priests.

Carter protested and took a painful decision to sever ties with his Baptist Church, saying that parts of its rigid doctrine violated the basic premises of his Christian faith. He wrote to his fellow Baptists and published an op-ed article “Losing my religion for equality”.

Carter had a philosophical and spiritual perspective on death. As he suffered from multiple bouts of cancer treatment, he remarked, “I didn’t ask God to let me live, but I just asked God to give me a proper attitude toward death. I found that I was absolutely and completely at ease with death”.

May Carter’s noble soul rest in eternal peace.

Source: Kathmandu Post, Nepal

Kul Chandra Gautam is a distinguished diplomat, development professional, and a former senior official of the United Nations. Currently, he serves on the Boards of several international and national organizations, charitable foundations and public-private partnerships. Previously, he served in senior managerial and leadership positions with the UN in several countries and continents in a career spanning over three decades. As a former Deputy Executive Director of UNICEF and Assistant Secretary-General of the United Nations, he has extensive experience in international diplomacy, development cooperation and humanitarian assistance.

IPS UN Bureau

  Source

Civil Society Trends for 2025: Nine Global Challenges, One Reason for Hope

Posted on by admin

Armed Conflicts, Civil Society, Climate Action, Climate Change, Crime & Justice, Economy & Trade, Environment, Featured, Global, Headlines, Human Rights, Labour, LGBTQ, Migration & Refugees, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion

LONDON / MONTEVIDEO, Uruguay, Dec 24 2024 (IPS) – It’s been a tumultuous year, and a tough one for struggles for human rights. Civil society’s work to seek social justice and hold the powerful to account has been tested at every turn. Civil society has kept holding the line, resisting power grabs and regressive legislation, calling out injustice and claiming some victories, often at great cost. And things aren’t about to get any easier, as key challenges identified in 2024 are likely to intensify in 2025.

Andrew Firmin

1. More people are likely to be exposed to conflict and its consequences, including humanitarian and human rights disasters, mass displacement and long-term trauma. The message of 2024 is largely one of impunity: perpetrators of conflict, including in Israel and Russia, will be confident they can resist international pressure and escape accountability. While there may be some kind of ceasefire in Gaza or halt to the Russia-Ukraine conflict, those responsible for large-scale atrocities are unlikely to face justice. Impunity is also likely to prevail in the conflicts taking place largely off the global radar, including in Myanmar and Sudan. There will also be growing concern about the use of AI and automated weapons in warfare, a troublingly under-regulated area.

As recent events in Lebanon and Syria have shown, changing dynamics, including shifting calculations made by countries such as Iran, Israel, Russia, Turkey and the USA, mean that frozen conflicts could reignite and new ones could erupt. As in Syria, these shifts could create sudden moments of opportunity; the international community and civil society must respond quickly when these come.

Inés M. Pousadela

2. The second Trump administration will have a global impact on many current challenges. It’s likely to reduce pressure on Israel, hamper the response to the climate crisis, put more strain on already flawed and struggling global governance institutions and embolden right-wing populists and nationalists the world over. These will bring negative consequences for civic space – the space for civil society, which depends on the freedoms of association, expression and peaceful assembly. Funding for civil society is also likely to be drastically reduced as a result of the new administration’s shifting priorities.

3. 2025 is the year that states are required to develop new plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to climate change under the Paris Agreement. The process will culminate in the COP30 climate summit in Brazil, likely the world’s last chance to limit the global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees above preindustrial levels. This will only happen if states stand up to fossil fuel companies and look beyond narrow short-term interests. Failing that, more of the debate may come to focus on adaptation. The unresolved question of who will pay for climate transition will remain central. Meanwhile, extreme weather events such as heatwaves and floods can be expected to continue to devastate communities, impose high economic costs, drive migration and exacerbate conflicts.

4. Globally, economic dysfunction is likely to increase, with more people struggling to afford basic necessities, increasingly including housing, as prices continue to rise, with climate change and conflict among the causes. The gap between the struggling many and the ultra-wealthy few will become more visible, and anger at rising prices or taxes will drive people – particularly young people deprived of opportunities – onto the streets. State repression will often follow. Frustration with the status quo means people will keep looking for political alternatives, a situation right-wing populists and nationalists will keep exploiting. But demands for labour rights, particularly among younger workers, will also likely increase, along with pressure for policies such as wealth taxes, a universal basic income and a shorter working week.

5. A year when the largest number of people ever went to the polls has ended – but there are still plenty of elections to come. Where elections are free and fair, voters are likely to keep rejecting incumbents, particularly due to economic hardship. Right-wing populists and nationalists are likely to benefit the most, but the tide will eventually turn: once they’ve been around long enough to be perceived as part of the political establishment, they too will see their positions threatened, and they can be expected to respond with authoritarianism, repression and the scapegoating of excluded groups. More politically manipulated misogyny, homophobia, transphobia and anti-migrant rhetoric can be expected as a result.

6. Even if developments in generative AI slow as the current model reaches the limits of the human-generated material it feeds on, international regulation and data protection will likely continue to lag behind. The use of AI-enabled surveillance, such as facial recognition, against activists is likely to increase and become more normalised. The challenge of disinformation is likely to intensify, particularly around conflicts and elections.

Several tech leaders have actively taken the side of right-wing populists and authoritarians, putting their platforms and wealth at the service of their political ambitions. Emerging alternative social media platforms offer some promise but are likely to face similar problems as they grow.

7. Climate change, conflict, economic strife, repression of LGBTQI+ identities and civil and political repression will continue to drive displacement and migration. Most migrants will remain in difficult and underfunded conditions in global south countries. In the global north, right-wing shifts are expected to drive more restrictive and repressive policies, including the deportation of migrants to countries where they may be at risk. Attacks on civil society working to defend their rights, including by assisting at sea and land borders, are also likely to intensify.

8. The backlash against women’s and LGBTQI+ rights will continue. The US right wing will continue to fund anti-rights movements in the global south, notably in Commonwealth African countries, while European conservative groups will continue to export their anti-rights campaigns, as some Spanish organisations have long done throughout Latin America. Disinformation efforts from multiple sources, including Russian state media, will continue to influence public opinion. This will leave civil society largely on the defensive, focused on consolidating gains and preventing setbacks.

9. As a result of these trends, the ability of civil society organisations and activists to operate freely will remain under pressure in the majority of countries. Just when its work is most needed, civil society will face growing restrictions on fundamental civic freedoms, including in the form of anti-NGO laws and laws that label civil society as agents of foreign powers, the criminalisation of protests and increasing threats to the safety of activists and journalists. Civil society will have to devote more of its resources to protecting its space, at the expense of the resources available to promote and advance rights.

10. Despite these many challenges, civil society will continue to strive on all fronts. It will continue to combine advocacy, protests, online campaigns, strategic litigation and international diplomacy. As awareness grows of the interconnected and transnational nature of the challenges, it will emphasise solidarity actions that transcend national boundaries and make connections between different struggles in different contexts.

Even in difficult circumstances, civil society achieved some notable victories in 2024. In the Czech Republic, civil society’s efforts led to a landmark reform of rape laws, and in Poland they resulted in a law making emergency contraception available without prescription, overturning previous restrictive legislation. After extensive civil society advocacy, Thailand led the way in Southeast Asia by passing a marriage equality law, while Greece became the first predominantly Christian Orthodox country to legalise same-sex marriage

People defended democracy. In South Korea, people took to the streets in large numbers to resist martial law, while in Bangladesh, protest action led to the ousting of a longstanding authoritarian government. In Guatemala, a president committed to fighting corruption was sworn in after civil society organised mass protests to demand that powerful elites respect the election results, and in Venezuela, hundreds of thousands organised to defend the integrity of the election, defeated the authoritarian government in the polls and took to the streets in the face of severe repression when the results weren’t recognised. In Senegal, civil society mobilised to prevent an attempt to postpone an election that resulted in an opposition win.

Civil society won victories in climate and environmental litigation – including in Ecuador, India and Switzerland – to force governments to recognise the human rights impacts of climate change and do more to reduce emissions and curb pollution. Civil society also took to the courts to pressure governments to stop arms sales to Israel, with a successful verdict in the Netherlands and others pending.

In 2025, the struggle continues. Civil society will keep carrying the torch of hope that a more peaceful, just, equal and sustainable world is possible. This idea will remain as important as the tangible impact we’ll continue to achieve despite the difficult circumstances.

Andrew Firmin is Editor-in-Chief and Inés M. Pousadela is Senior Research Specialist at CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation. The two are co-directors and writers for CIVICUS Lens and co-authors of the State of Civil Society Report.

  Source