Civil Society’s Reform Vision Gains Urgency as the USA Abandons UN Institutions

Posted on by admin

Armed Conflicts, Civil Society, Climate Change, Featured, Global, Headlines, Human Rights, International Justice, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion

Credit: Fabrice Coffrini/AFP via Getty Images

LONDON, Apr 2 2025 (IPS) – Today’s multiple and connected crises – including conflicts, climate breakdown and democratic regression – are overwhelming the capabilities of the international institutions designed to address problems states can’t or won’t solve. Now US withdrawal from global bodies threatens to worsen a crisis in international cooperation.

The second Trump administration quickly announced its withdrawal from the Paris Agreement and the World Health Organization (WHO), terminated its cooperation with the UN Human Rights Council, walked out of negotiations on a global tax treaty and imposed sanctions on International Criminal Court officials.

Although the USA has sometimes been an obstructive force, including by repeatedly blocking Security Council resolutions on Israel, global institutions lose legitimacy when powerful states opt out. While all states are formally equal in the UN, the reality is that the USA’s decisions to participate or quit matter more than most because it’s a superpower whose actions have global implications. It’s also the biggest funder of UN institutions, even if it has a poor record in paying on time.

As it stands, the USA’s WHO withdrawal will take effect in January 2026, although the decision could face a legal challenge and Trump could rescind his decision if the WHO makes changes to his liking, since deal-making powered by threats and brinkmanship is how he does business. But if withdrawal happens, the WHO will be hard hit. The US government is the WHO’s biggest contributor, providing around 18 per cent of funding. That’s a huge gap to fill, and it’s likely the organisation will have to cut back its work. Progress towards a global pandemic treaty, under negotiation since 2021, may be hindered.

It’s possible philanthropic sources will step up their support, and other states may help fill the gap. The challenge comes if authoritarian states take advantage of the situation by increasing their contributions and expect greater influence in return. China, for example, may be poised to do so.

That’s what happened when the first Trump administration pulled out of the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). China filled the vacuum by increasing its contributions to become UNESCO’s biggest annual funder. Presumably not coincidentally, a Chinese official became its deputy head, while China was able to block Taiwan’s attempts to join. It was out of concern about this growing influence that the Biden administration took the USA back into UNESCO in 2023; that decision could now be reversed, as Trump has claimed UNESCO is biased against the USA and ordered a review.

The Human Rights Council may be less immediately affected because the USA isn’t currently a member, its term having ended at the close of 2024. It rejoined in 2021 after Trump pulled out in 2018, and had already made the unusual decision not to seek a second term, likely because this would have provoked a backlash over its support for Israel. Apart from its relationship with Israel, however, during its term under the Biden administration the USA was largely recognised as playing a positive role in the Council’s business. If it refuses to cooperate, it deprives US citizens of a vital avenue of redress.

The USA’s actions may also inspire other states with extremist leaders to follow suit. Argentina’s President Milei, a keen Trump admirer, has imitated him by announcing his country’s departure from the WHO. Political leaders in Hungary and Italy have discussed doing the same. Israel followed the USA in declaring it wouldn’t engage with the Human Rights Council. For its own reasons, in February authoritarian Nicaragua also announced its withdrawal from the Council following a report critical of its appalling human rights record.

It could be argued that institutions like the Human Rights Council and UNESCO, having survived one Trump withdrawal, can endure a second. But these shocks come at a different time, when the UN system is already more fragile and damaged. Now the very idea of multilateralism and a rules-based international order is under attack, with transactional politics and hard-nosed national power calculations on the rise. Backroom deals resulting from power games are replacing processes with a degree of transparency aimed at achieving consensus. The space for civil society engagement and opportunities for leverage are in danger of shrinking accordingly.

Real reform needed

Revitalising the UN may seem a tall order when it’s under attack, but as CIVICUS’s 2025 State of Civil Society Report outlines, civil society has ideas about how to save the UN by putting people at its heart. The UNMute Civil Society initiative, backed by over 300 organisations and numerous states, makes five calls to improve civil society’s involvement: using digital technologies to broaden participation, bridging digital divides by focusing on connectivity for the most excluded, changing procedures and practices to ensure effective and meaningful participation, creating an annual civil society action day as an opportunity to assess progress on civil society participation and appointing a UN civil society envoy.

Each of these ideas is practical and could open up space for greater reforms. A UN civil society envoy could, for example, promote best practices in civil society participation across the UN and ensure a diverse range of civil society is involved in the UN’s work.

Civil society is also calling for competitive Human Rights Council elections, with a civil society role in scrutinising candidates, and limits on Security Council veto powers. And as time approaches to pick a new UN Secretary-General, civil society is mobilising the 1 for 8 billion campaign, pushing for an open, transparent, inclusive and merit-based selection process. The office has always been held by a man, and the call is for the UN to make history by appointing a feminist woman leader.

These would all offer small steps towards making the UN system more open, democratic and accountable. There’s nothing impossible or unimaginable about these ideas, and times of crisis create opportunities to experiment. States that want to reverse the tide of attacks on international cooperation and revitalise the UN should work with civil society to take them forward.

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

Global Climate Action Progressing, but Speed and Scale Still Lacking

Posted on by admin

Civil Society, Climate Action, Climate Change, Climate Change Finance, Climate Change Justice, Editors’ Choice, Featured, Global, Headlines, Humanitarian Emergencies, Small Island Developing States, Sustainable Development Goals, TerraViva United Nations

Climate Action

Former UN Climate Chief Christiana Figueres praised the role of small island states in maintaining the integrity of international climate agreements but said the world was far behind and said that the decarbonisation of the global economy is by now irreversible with or without the craziness in the United States.

Former Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Christiana Figueres, speaking during a press briefing with the Oxford Climate Journalism Network on March 27. Credit: Alison Kentish/IPS

Former Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Christiana Figueres, speaking during a press briefing with the Oxford Climate Journalism Network on March 27. Credit: Alison Kentish/IPS

Mar 31 2025 (IPS) – 2025 marks the tenth anniversary of the Paris Climate Agreement. One of its chief architects, Christiana Figueres, says the world is heading in the right direction but warns that urgent action is needed to close critical gaps.

The pact, adopted in 2015 by 195 nations, set out to limit global warming to “well below 2°C” above pre-industrial levels, striving for 1.5°C. But in 2024, the world shattered records as the hottest year ever, surpassing that crucial threshold.

Speaking at a press briefing with the Oxford Climate Journalism Network on March 27, Figueres said while technology and investment are advancing, the world is not moving fast enough.

“We’re far behind,” she said. “We have very clear data points of all of the technologies that are exponentially growing on both sides of the market – the supply side as well as the demand – and we can see that all of that is moving, as well as investment. That definitely defines the direction of travel and the decarbonisation of the global economy is by now irreversible with or without the craziness in the United States. What still is not at the level that we should have is speed and scale.”

A co-founder of Global Optimism, an organisation focused on hope and action in the face of climate change, Figueres emphasised the urgency of the crisis while highlighting the global capacity to address it.

While one in five people globally already experience climate impacts daily, and climate-related costs rose to $320 billion last year, investment in clean technology is outpacing fossil fuels, she noted.

“We had last year two times the level of investment into clean technology versus fossil fuels and the prices continue to fall. Every year they fall even more and more. Solar prices last year fell by a whopping 35%. Electric vehicle batteries fell by 20%,” she said.

Figueres also spoke about the disproportionate burden placed on small island nations, which are already importing fossil fuels at the cost of up to 30% of their national budgets. “These islands are importing the poison that is directly threatening their survival,” she argued, stressing the need for renewable energy solutions like wind and hydro to replace fossil fuels.

The former head of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) also praised the role of small island states in maintaining the integrity of international climate agreements. “It’s not the size of the nation but the integrity of their position that matters,” she said, noting how these nations have consistently held larger emitters accountable.

Asked about the Paris Agreement’s architecture, Figueres defended its approach.

“The Paris Agreement is really strange in its legal bindingness. It is legally binding to all countries that have ratified it, but what is binding is the overall trajectory of decarbonisation to get to net zero by 2050. What is not binding is the level of the NDCs which are the nationally determined contributions that every country has to submit every 5 years and be held accountable against that,” she said, likening the agreement’s style to running a marathon, “the goal is clear, but the pace is up to each runner.”

Figueres says the COP process was designed in the early 1990s as a multilateral platform for countries to negotiate agreements aimed at addressing climate change collectively – something that was critical for establishing frameworks like the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement. She stressed that with agreements in place to guide global decarbonisation until 2050, the next phase of climate talks should focus on implementation rather than new negotiations.

“The implementation is mostly on the part of the private sector and the financial sector. Do  they need governments to support them? Absolutely, so what governments need to do is to put regulations, incentives, and tax credits in place to accelerate investment in the sectors that we know are going to address climate change and to give long-term certainty to the private sector so that they can do their planning, but those regulations, those incentives, and those tax breaks are not to be negotiated between countries. They are to be enacted nationally, domestically.”

With COP 30 approaching, Figueres urged countries to take a long-term view in their climate planning. “NDCs should align government and private sector ambitions with the next decade’s possibilities, not just the current technologies,” she said.

As host country Brazil prepares for the 2025 UN Climate Talks, Figueres called for a holistic approach to climate policy, linking energy, industry, and nature. She also cautioned against framing COP 30 as a “last chance”, emphasising that it should be seen as a milestone in a longer journey toward global climate goals.

2025 marks the tenth anniversary of the Paris Climate Agreement. One of its chief architects, Christiana Figueres says the world is heading in the right direction but warns that urgent action is needed to close critical gaps.

The pact, adopted in 2015 by 195 nations, set out to limit global warming to “well below 2°C” above pre-industrial levels, striving for 1.5°C. But in 2024, the world shattered records as the hottest year ever, surpassing that crucial threshold.

Speaking at a press briefing with the Oxford Climate Journalism Network on March 27, Figueres said while technology and investment are advancing, the world is not moving fast enough.

“We’re far behind,” she said. “We have very clear data points of all of the technologies that are exponentially growing on both sides of the market – the supply side as well as the demand – and we can see that all of that is moving, as well as investment. That definitely defines the direction of travel and the decarbonisation of the global economy is by now irreversible with or without the craziness in the United States. What still is not at the level that we should have is speed and scale.”

A co-founder of Global Optimism, an organisation focused on hope and action in the face of climate change, Figueres emphasised the urgency of the crisis while highlighting the global capacity to address it.

While one in five people globally already experience climate impacts daily, and climate-related costs rose to $320 billion last year, investment in clean technology is outpacing fossil fuels, she noted.

“We had last year two times the level of investment into clean technology versus fossil fuels and the prices continue to fall. Every year they fall even more and more. Solar prices last year fell by a whopping 35%. Electric vehicle batteries fell by 20%,” she said.

Figueres also spoke about the disproportionate burden placed on small island nations, which are already importing fossil fuels at the cost of up to 30% of their national budgets. “These islands are importing the poison that is directly threatening their survival,” she argued, stressing the need for renewable energy solutions like wind and hydro to replace fossil fuels.

The former head of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) also praised the role of small island states in maintaining the integrity of international climate agreements. “It’s not the size of the nation but the integrity of their position that matters,” she said, noting how these nations have consistently held larger emitters accountable.

Asked about the Paris Agreement’s architecture, Figueres defended its approach.

“The Paris Agreement is really strange in its legal bindingness. It is legally binding to all countries that have ratified it, but what is binding is the overall trajectory of decarbonisation to get to net zero by 2050. What is not binding is the level of the NDCs, which are the nationally determined contributions that every country has to submit every 5 years and be held accountable against that,” she said, likening the agreement’s style to running a marathon, “the goal is clear, but the pace is up to each runner.”

Figueres says the COP process was designed in the early 1990s as a multilateral platform for countries to negotiate agreements aimed at addressing climate change collectively – something that was critical for establishing frameworks like the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement. She stressed that with agreements in place to guide global decarbonisation until 2050, the next phase of climate talks should focus on implementation rather than new negotiations.

“The implementation is mostly on the part of the private sector and the financial sector. Do  they need governments to support them? Absolutely, so what governments need to do is to put regulations, incentives, and tax credits in place to accelerate investment in the sectors that we know are going to address climate change and to give long-term certainty to the private sector so that they can do their planning, but those regulations, those incentives, and those tax breaks are not to be negotiated between countries. They are to be enacted nationally, domestically.”

With COP 30 approaching, Figueres urged countries to take a long-term view in their climate planning. “NDCs should align government and private sector ambitions with the next decade’s possibilities, not just the current technologies,” she said.

As host country Brazil prepares for the 2025 UN Climate Talks, Figueres called for a holistic approach to climate policy, linking energy, industry, and nature. She also cautioned against framing COP 30 as a “last chance”, emphasising that it should be seen as a milestone in a longer journey toward global climate goals.

IPS UN Bureau Report

  Source

How to Turn the Tide: Resisting the Global Assault on Gender Rights

Posted on by admin

Civil Society, Crime & Justice, Education, Featured, Gender, Gender Identity, Global, Headlines, Human Rights, LGBTQ, TerraViva United Nations, Women’s Health

Opinion

Credit: Amanda Perobelli/Reuters via Gallo Images

MONTEVIDEO, Uruguay, Mar 27 2025 (IPS) – This year’s session of the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women (CSW69), the world’s leading forum for advancing gender equality, confronted unprecedented challenges. With Saudi Arabia in the chair and anti-rights voices growing increasingly influential in the forum, the struggle to hold onto international commitments on gender equality intensified dramatically. On 8 March, International Women’s Day mobilisations also took on added urgency, with demonstrations from Istanbul to Buenos Aires focusing on resisting the multiple manifestations of gender rights regression being felt in communities worldwide.

CIVICUS’s 2025 State of Civil Society Report shows that hard-won women’s and LGBTQI+ rights are at risk, challenged by coordinated anti-rights movements that use gender as a political wedge issue. But it also provides abundant evidence that civil society is rising to the challenge.

Global regression

They call it ‘child protection’ in Russia, ‘family values’ in several Eastern European countries, ‘religious freedom’ in the USA, and ‘African traditions’ across the continent. The terminology shifts, but the objective is the same: halting progress towards gender equality and dismantling rights. Of course, it isn’t about differences in cultural values – it’s an orchestrated political strategy.

In Afghanistan, the Taliban’s system of gender apartheid has reached its brutal endpoint: women are effectively imprisoned in their homes, barred from education, work and public life, their voices literally silenced by prohibitions on singing or talking in public. Iranian authorities have gone to extreme lengths to maintain control over women’s bodies. In Iraq, lawmakers are considering lowering the minimum marriage age to just nine years old.

These extreme examples exist along a spectrum that includes Ghana’s parliament criminalising same-sex relations, Russia expanding ‘propaganda’ laws to prohibit any positive portrayal of LGBTQI+ identities, and Georgia – a country that says it wants to join the European Union – adopting Russian-style legislation restricting LGBTQI+ organisations under the cynical framing of ‘protecting minors’.

In the USA, Trump-appointed justices overturned constitutional abortion protections, triggering restrictions across numerous states. The second Trump administration has now reinstated the global gag rule, restricting international funding for organisations providing reproductive healthcare. The Guttmacher Institute projects this will deny 11.7 million women access to contraception, potentially causing 4.2 million unintended pregnancies and over 8,300 maternal deaths.

A coordinated transnational movement

Across Africa, there’s an intensifying wave of anti-LGBTQI+ legislation, often driven by political opportunism. Mali’s military junta passed a law criminalising homosexuality as part of its broader crackdown on rights. Ghana’s parliament passed a draconian ‘anti-LGBTQI+ bill’, while Uganda’s Constitutional Court upheld the country’s harsh Anti-Homosexuality Act. In Kenya, a Family Protection Bill that would outlaw LGBTQI+ advocacy remains before parliament.

As recently seen at CSW, the ongoing backlash is transnational in nature. Anti-rights forces share tactics, funding and messaging across borders, with conservative foundations from the USA promoting restrictive legislation in Africa and Russian ideologues exporting their playbook to former Soviet states and beyond. US evangelical organisations and conservative think-tanks are a particularly influential source of anti-rights narratives and funding: they’ve funnelled millions of dollars into campaigns against reproductive rights and LGBTQI+ equality worldwide, while providing intellectual frameworks and legal strategies for adaption to local contexts from Poland to Uganda.

Victories against the odds

Against this daunting backdrop, civil society continues achieving remarkable victories through strategic resistance and persistence. In 2024, Thailand became Southeast Asia’s first country to legalise same-sex marriage, while Greece broke new ground as the first majority Orthodox Christian country to do so. France enshrined abortion rights in its constitution, creating a powerful bulwark against future threats.

A regional trend continued in the Caribbean, with civil society litigation successfully overturning colonial-era laws that criminalised homosexuality in Dominica. Colombia and Sierra Leone banned child marriage, while women’s rights groups in The Gambia defeated a bill that would have decriminalised female genital mutilation.

These successes share common elements: they’re the result of sustained, multi-year advocacy campaigns combining legal challenges, community mobilisation, strategic communications and international solidarity.

Take Thailand’s marriage equality victory. Success came partly through the campaign’s intersection with the youth-led democracy movement, which connected LGBTQI+ rights to broader aspirations for a fairer society. In Kenya, despite harsh anti-LGBTQI+ rhetoric from political leaders, strategic litigation by civil society secured a court ruling preventing incitement to violence against LGBTQI+ people.

Even in the most repressive contexts, activists find ways to resist. Afghan women, denied basic rights to education and movement, have developed underground schools and created subtle forms of civil disobedience that maintain pressure without risking their lives. Along with their Iranian sisters, they continue to campaign for gender apartheid to be recognised as a crime under international law.

The path forward: intersectionality and solidarity

Progress in realising rights is neither linear nor inevitable. Each advance triggers opposition, so every victory needs defence. To solidify and last, legal changes must be accompanied by social transformation – which is why civil society complements policy advocacy with public education, community organising and cultural engagement.

Advocacy is most effective when it embraces intersectionality, recognising how gender, sexuality, class, race, disability and migration status create overlapping forms of exclusion that need integrated responses. Feminist movements are increasingly centring the experiences of Black women, Indigenous women, women with disabilities and trans women.

Even where progress can feel elusive, civil society is playing a crucial role in keeping hope alive. Organisations defending women’s and LGBTQI+ rights are maintaining spaces where people are allowed to be their true selves, providing support services that nobody else will provide, documenting violations that would otherwise go unrecorded, keeping up the pressure on the authorities and building solidarity networks that sustain activists through difficult times.

International support for these efforts has never been more important. The USAID funding freeze highlights a troubling trend of shrinking resources for gender rights defenders at precisely the moment they’re needed most. This makes diversifying funding sources an urgent priority, with feminist philanthropists, progressive foundations and governments committed to gender equality needing to step up. More innovative funding mechanisms are required to rapidly respond to emergencies while sustaining the long-term work of movement building. Individuals have power: anyone can contribute directly to frontline organisations, amplify their voices on social media, challenge regressive narratives in their communities and demand that elected representatives prioritise gender equality domestically and in foreign policy. In the global struggle for fundamental rights, no one should be a spectator. The time for solidarity is now.

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

Will UN be a Possible Target as US Goes on a Rampage?

Posted on by admin

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

UNITED NATIONS, Mar 26 2025 (IPS) – The Trump administration, spearheaded by senior adviser Elon Musk, has been on a wild rampage: mass layoffs of government employees, gutting federal agencies, dismantling the Department of Education and USAID, defying a federal judge and threatening universities with drastic cuts in grants and contracts—decisions mostly engineered by the newly-created Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).

Perhaps with more to come.

The cuts were best symbolized with an image of Musk wielding a heavy chainsaw aimed at slashing “wasteful spending”

But the layoffs and subsequent reversals– the on-again, off-again decisions– have triggered chaos in the nation’s capital.

And political outrage is fast becoming the norm.

Musk, the tech billionaire, who acts as a virtual Prime Minister to President Trump, has called on the U.S. to exit the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the United Nations.

“I agree,” he wrote in response to a post from a right-wing political commentator, saying “it’s time” for the U.S. to leave NATO and the UN.”

The threat against the UN has been reinforced following a move by several Republican lawmakers who have submitted a bill on the U.S. exit from the U.N., claiming that the organization does not align with the Trump administration’s “America First” agenda.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/no-sane-country-would-stand-this-lawmakers-launch-effort-withdraw-u-s-from-united-nations

What’s next?

The abrogation of the 1947 US-UN Headquarters Agreement?

That 78-year-old agreement helped establish the world body in a former decrepit slaughter house in Turtle Bay New York.

The Agreement is an international treaty, and under international law, treaties are generally binding on the parties that sign them. However, the U.S. has a constitutional process for withdrawing from treaties.

In an article in the Wall Street Journal March 14, titled “The U.N. Is Ripping America Off in New York”, Eugene Kontorovich, a senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation and a professor at George Mason University School of Law, points out the U.S. offered to host the newly-created U.N. after World War II, amid a wave of optimism about the organization’s ability to prevent future wars.

John D. Rockefeller Jr. donated the land, and the headquarters was given an interstate-free loan from Washington that would be worth billions today.

The United Nations shall not be moved unless the headquarters district ceases to be used for that purpose, the agreement says. Some U.N. officials have taken this to mean the U.N. can’t be evicted.

“But the agreement is a treaty, and the default rule of international law is that treaties, unless they say otherwise, last as long as the parties wish. If the U.S. cancels the treaty, the entire arrangement disappears, nothing in the treaty’s text prohibits withdrawal. Indeed, had an irrevocable agreement been intended, (the US) Congress, which is needed to approve treaties, would not have allowed the agreement to pass without making it explicit”.

While the treaty refers to the “permanent” headquarters of the U.N., this simply means “durable.” Many international treaties use “permanent” in this way, to mean long-lasting, not eternal. The Permanent International Court of Justice lasted from 1922-46.

“Trump should reopen the 1947 agreement locating its headquarters. It was a terrible real-estate deal”, declared Kontorovich

Dr. Stephen Zunes, a Professor of Politics and International Studies at the University of San Francisco, told IPS removing the United Nations headquarters from the United States has long been advocated by the far right and generally dismissed as a fringe idea not to be taken seriously.

However, as the Trump administration has already demonstrated, even the most extreme ideologically-driven proposals can indeed end up being implemented as policy, he said.

“The United States has not always upheld its obligations under the treaty, such as in 1988 when the Reagan administration refused to allow PLO chairman Yasir Arafat to address the world body, resulting in the entire General Assembly relocating to Geneva to hear his speech”.

Removing the United Nations headquarters from the United States, he argued, “would symbolize the end of the global leadership we have had since the end of World War II when the victorious allies established the world body.”

Along with the Trump administration’s decision to disestablish the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), the Fulbright Program, and other symbols of American leadership internationally, it would end any semblance of the United States remaining a preeminent force in international cooperation.

At the same time, the United States has increasingly become an outlier when it comes to the international community rather than a leader or partner.

“This is true even under Democratic administrations, as indicated by Biden’s rogue positions in regard to Israel’s war on Gaza, Palestinian statehood, the International Court of Justice, the International Criminal Court, and other UN institutions.”

Having the UN headquarters in a more neutral location may end up being for the best, said Dr Zunes, who has written extensively on the politics of the United Nations.

So far, the US has withdrawn from the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) and the World Health Organization (WHO), while it has warned that two other UN organizations “deserve renewed scrutiny”– the UN Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA)—a warning seen as a veiled threat of US withdrawal from the two UN agencies.

Meanwhile, the United States has cut $377 million worth of funding to the UN reproductive and sexual health agency, UNFPA.

Giving an indication of UN agencies moving some of their functions out of the US, Secretary-General Antonio Guterres told reporters at a briefing last month: “We have been investing in Nairobi, creating the conditions for Nairobi to receive services that are now in more expensive locations”.

“And UNICEF will be transferring soon some of the functions to Nairobi. And UNFPA will be essentially moving to Nairobi. And I can give you many other examples of things that are being done and correspond to the idea that we must be effective and cost-effective,” he said.

Asked about the possible withdrawal of the US from the world body, Martin S. Edwards, Associate Dean for Academic and Student Affairs, School of Diplomacy and International Relations at Seton Hall University, told IPS it would not be clear what the intent of this move would be.

In fact, what is certain, he pointed out, is that it would be a mistake of gigantic proportions. The Trump administration, solely to curry favor with some small fraction of its base, would be handing a huge diplomatic victory to China, who would not hesitate to jump at the chance to host the UN.

“And even this White House has to see that, so I don’t see this as advancing US interests in any form. On the contrary, had the White House thought the UN as unimportant, they wouldn’t have designated Elise Stefanik as UN ambassador,” he declared.

A report in the Washington Examiner last January said Stefanik, the fourth-ranking Republican in the House of Representatives, and the US Ambassador-elect to the UN, has vowed to utilize her skills as a lawmaker to scrutinize the funding provided to the U.N. and cut the budget provided if necessary.

“As a member of Congress, I also understand deeply that we must be good stewards of U.S. taxpayer dollars,” Stefanik said. “The U.S. is the largest contributor to the U.N. by far. Our tax dollars should not be complicit in propping up entities that are counter to American interests, antisemitic, or engaging in fraud, corruption, or terrorism.”

As the largest single contributor, the US currently pays 22% of the United Nations’ regular budget and 27% of the peacekeeping budget. Still, the US owes $1.5 billion to the UN’s regular budget.

And, between the regular budget, the peacekeeping budget, and international tribunals, the total amount the US owes is $2.8 billion.

IPS UN Bureau Report

  Source

A Test of Humanity: Migrants’ Rights in a World Turning Inward

Posted on by admin

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

Opinion

Credit: Pietro Bertora/SOS Humanity

MONTEVIDEO, Uruguay, Mar 25 2025 (IPS) – The United Nations Refugee Agency faces devastating cuts that may eliminate 5,000 to 6,000 jobs, with potentially catastrophic consequences for millions of people fleeing war, repression, hunger and climate disasters. This 75-year-old institution, established to help Europeans displaced by the Second World War, now confronts an unprecedented financial crisis, primarily due to the US foreign aid freeze – and the timing couldn’t be worse.

As CIVICUS’s 14th annual State of Civil Society Report documents, a series of connected crisis – including conflicts, economic hardship and climate change – have created a perfect storm that threatens migrants and refugees, who face increasingly hostile policies and dangerous journeys from governments turning their backs on principles of international solidarity and human rights.

At least 8,938 people died on migration routes worldwide in 2024, making it the deadliest year on record, with many of the deaths in the Mediterranean and along routes across the Americas, including the Caribbean Sea, the Darién Gap between Colombia and Panama and the extensive border between Mexico and the USA. Just last week, six people died and another 40 are missing after their boat capsized in the Mediterranean.

Such tragedies have come time again over the last year. In March 2024, 60 people, including a Senegalese mother and her baby, died from dehydration after their dinghy was left adrift in the Mediterranean. In June, US border agents found seven dead migrants in the Arizona and New Mexico deserts. In September, seven people were found clinging to the sides of a boat that capsized off the Italian island of Lampedusa, after watching 21 other people, many of them family members, drown around them.

These tragedies weren’t accidents or policy failures. They were the predictable results of morally indefensible political choices.

The reality behind the rhetoric

The facts contradict populist narratives about migration overwhelming wealthy countries. At least 71 per cent of the world’s refugees remain in the global south, with countries such as Bangladesh, Colombia, Ethiopia and Uganda hosting far more displaced people than most European countries. Yet global north governments keep hardening borders and outsourcing migration management to prevent arrivals. The second Trump administration has declared a ‘national emergency’ at the US southern border, enabling military deployment and promising mass deportations while explicitly framing migrants as invaders – a rhetoric that history shows can easily lead to deadly consequences.

Europe continues its own troubling trajectory. Italy is attempting to transfer asylum seekers to Albanian detention centres, while the Netherlands has proposed sending rejected asylum seekers to Uganda, blatantly disregarding the state’s human rights violations, particularly against LGBTQI+ people. The European Union is expanding controversial deals with authoritarian governments in Egypt and Tunisia, effectively paying them to prevent migrants reaching European shores.

Anti-migrant rhetoric has become a common and effective electoral strategy. Far-right parties have made significant gains in elections in many countries by campaigning against immigration. Demonising narratives played a key role in Donald Trump’s re-election. The mobilisation of xenophobic sentiment extends beyond Europe and the USA, from anti-Haitian rhetoric in the Dominican Republic to anti-Bangladeshi campaigning in India.

Civil society under siege

Civil society organisations providing humanitarian assistance are increasingly being criminalised for their work. Italy has made it illegal for search-and-rescue organisations to conduct more than one rescue per trip, imposes heavy fines for noncompliance and deliberately directs rescue vessels to distant ports. These measures have achieved their intended goal of reducing the number of active rescue ships and contributed to the over 2,400 migrant drownings recorded in the Mediterranean in 2024 alone. Tunisia’s president has labelled people advocating for African migrants’ rights as traitors and mercenaries, leading to criminal charges and imprisonment.

Despite mounting obstacles, civil society maintains its commitment to protecting the human rights of migrants and refugees. Civil society groups maintain lifesaving operations in displacement settings from the Darién Gap to Cox’s Bazar in Bangladesh. Legal aid providers navigate increasingly complex asylum systems to help people access protection. Community organisations facilitate integration through language instruction, job placements and social connections. Advocacy groups document abuses and push for accountability when state authorities violate migrants’ human rights.

But they’re now operating with drastically diminishing resources in increasingly hostile environments. Critical protection mechanisms are being dismantled at a time of unprecedented need. The implications should alarm anyone concerned with human dignity. If borders keep hardening and safe pathways disappear, more people will attempt dangerous journeys with deadly consequences. The criminalisation of solidarity risks eliminating critical lifelines for the most vulnerable, and dehumanising rhetoric is normalising discrimination and institutionalising indifference and cruelty.

A different approach is possible

Rather than reactive, fear-based policies, civil society can push for comprehensive approaches that uphold human dignity while addressing the complex drivers of migration. This means confronting the root causes of displacement through conflict prevention, climate action and sustainable development. It also means creating more legal pathways for migration, ending the criminalisation of humanitarian assistance and investing in integration support.

There’s a need to challenge the fundamental assumption that migration is an existential threat rather than a manageable reality than requires humane governance, and an asset to receiving societies. Historically, societies that have integrated newcomers have greatly benefited from their contributions – economically, culturally and socially.

In a world of unprecedented and growing global displacement, the question isn’t whether migration will continue – it will – but whether it will be managed with cruelty or compassion. As CIVICUS’s State of Civil Society Report makes clear, the treatment of migrants and refugees serves as a litmus test: the way societies respond will prove or disprove their commitment to the idea of a shared humanity – the principle that all humans deserve dignity, regardless of where they were born or the documents they carry.

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

‘What’s Next?’ Women-led Movements Fear for the Future

Posted on by admin

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

Opinion

Commission on the Status of Women (CSW69)—March 10-21, 2025

UNITED NATIONS, Mar 24 2025 (IPS) – Women rights advocates who gathered at UN Headquarters for the world’s biggest meeting (10 -21 March) on gender equality have been sharing their concerns about the growing backlash against feminism, and how major funding cuts from donor countries could threaten programmes aimed at improving the lives of women and girls.

They came from all over the world for the Commission on the Status of Women, two weeks of discussions, talks and networking. At the opening session, Sima Bahous, the head of UN Women (the United Nations agency for gender equality), told them that “misogyny is on the rise” and, at a townhall convened by António Guterres, the UN Secretary-General said that a “furious backlash” threatens to “push progress into reverse.

UN News met some of the delegates to gauge the mood and find out how they are they are feeling about the backlash against feminism flagged by UN Women, and what the threat of massive funding cuts from some major donor countries could mean for their organisations, and the people they support.

‘We’re going to move backwards before we move go forward’

Grace Forrest is the founding director of Walk Free, Walk Free, an international human rights group focused on the eradication of modern slavery, which produces the Global Slavery Index, considered to be the world’s leading data set on measuring and understanding modern slavery. Credit: UN News/Conor Lennon

“We’re here because women and girls are disproportionately impacted by nearly every form of modern slavery, from forced marriage to forced labour, debt bondage and human trafficking.

Their vulnerability to modern slavery is rising and their rights risk being rolled back throughout the world, so we wanted to come to here to put modern slavery on the agenda, in the context of an authoritarian government in the United States which is trying to ban words such as race, gender and feminism. We won’t be silenced or erased.

Today, we’re seeing misogyny on full display, through social media and through world leaders not mincing their words and people electing leaders who disregard safety and the value of women in the public forum.

We’re extremely concerned by funding cuts from major donors. We’re hearing about frontline organisations, run by people who have survived debt bondage and forced labour, having to take loans to try and keep their organisations afloat. Some of the most effective frontline organisations are being hit hardest and fastest.

Advancing the rights of women and girls is actually quite a tall order right now and it’s a scary fact to face, that we’re actually just going to be hoping to not move backwards. And I think we are going to go backwards before we go forward.

This is a time for systems to step up and directly call out the need for funding on issues like modern slavery.”

Soundcloud

‘We are highly affected by budget cuts’

Moufeeda Haidar from youth NGO Restless Development, speaks in the GA Hall during CSW69. She is the Senior Regional Programme Coordinator at Restless Development, a non-profit global agency that supports the collective power of young leaders. She was a Global Youth Fellow for Gender Equality in 2024. Credit: UN News

“I’m based in Lebanon, and I mainly work on a programme which tackles sexual and reproductive health and rights for young woman living with disabilities, women living with HIV, those who identify as LGBTQ, and displaced woman across nine countries, between Africa, Central America and the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region.

The backlash against feminism has always been there. Sometimes it’s very politicised and it’s used to the advantage of the patriarchy, so that women’s rights and gender rights attacked. There’s definitely a rising backlash in Lebanon and the MENA region.

The current political environment is not a surprise for us. We are already highly affected by budget cuts in the MENA region. Funds for youth programmes have been cut for years. In our latest State of Youth Civil Society report, 72 per cent of respondents said that they barely receive any funds for climate action projects.

We are very worried about how to plan. We work with grassroots organisations, women-led organisations and feminist movements and we have created networks in these countries and seen the amazing work that they have done throughout the years. We are wondering what’s next. How are we going to support this network?”

Linda Sestock is the president of the Canadian Federation of University Women, which awards universiCredit: ty scholarships to women and promotes the participation of women in all aspects of emerging technology and leadership. Credit: UN News

“We’re extremely concerned, especially after seeing what happened with our neighbours to the south of us: we have noticed how alliances have shifted in the United States and we’re very fearful. We want to make sure that it doesn’t happen in Canada as well.

Most Canadians believe in the rights of our fellow women and that we’re going to be able to continue on the same trajectory that we’re on, but we need to be careful and we need to make sure that we don’t backslide.

We need to be hyper focused about ensuring that women are educated and that they’re entering the fields of technology, engineering, science and mathematics, because right now algorithms are slanted towards men and can be used against women.

We’re worried when we see that some words are not allowed anymore, such as diversity, equity and inclusion [a list of words banned or discouraged by the US administration has reportedly been drawn up and circulated].

We have a lot of professors in our organisation, and people are losing grants because they are being asked to remove words like female and gender. They are refusing and so they are losing funding, and we need to make sure that we continue to embrace diversity, equity and inclusion.

It boggles the mind and leaves me speechless.”

These interviews have been edited for clarity and length

Source: UN News

IPS UN Bureau

  Source