Price and Power of Freedom: Celebrating Nelson Mandela International Day

Posted on by admin

Active Citizens, Civil Society, Democracy, Editors’ Choice, Featured, Headlines, Human Rights, Humanitarian Emergencies, Inequality, International Justice, Sustainable Development Goals, TerraViva United Nations

Human Rights

For to be free is not merely to cast off one’s chains, but to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others. – Nelson Mandela

The General Assembly’s Plenary meeting on Nelson Mandela International Day. Credit: Jennifer Xin-Tsu Lin Levine/IPS

The General Assembly’s Plenary meeting on Nelson Mandela International Day. Credit: Jennifer Xin-Tsu Lin Levine/IPS

UNITED NATIONS, Jul 18 2025 (IPS) – The United Nations celebrated Nelson Mandela International Day in honor of the activist and politician’s lifelong commitment to peace and democracy.

At the 16th celebration of Nelson Mandela International Day, delegates, representatives and visitors alike reflected on the impact of South Africa’s first black president and leader in a fully representative democratic election.

The activist and politician, who spent 27 years in prison, was a staunch freedom fighter—arguing that freedom was not only an individual mission but also a collective responsibility and communal effort.

These principles were enshrined in the Nelson Mandela Rules, officially called the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, a document protecting humane treatment of individuals without liberty. The document emphasizes respect for human dignity, prohibits torture and promotes fair and just conditions.

Although the Nelson Mandela Rules are “soft law” and not legally binding, the General Assembly has adopted them as universally agreed minimum standards. Many countries have incorporated the rules into domestic law, but many others have violated conditions of healthcare, solitary confinement and ethical working rights. Delegates and various speakers agreed that there was still much work to be done.

Nelson Mandela International Day, established in 2009 by the United Nations General Assembly and officially celebrated in 2010 on July 18th (President Mandela’s birthday), is a holiday encouraging all citizens around the world to engage positively in their communities.

Dr. Naledi Pandor, chair of the Nelson Mandela Foundation, addresses the UN General Assembly Plenary on Nelson Mandela International Day. Credit: Jennifer Xin-Tsu Lin Levin/IPS

Dr. Naledi Pandor, chair of the Nelson Mandela Foundation, addresses the UN General Assembly Plenary on Nelson Mandela International Day. Credit: Jennifer Xin-Tsu Lin Levin/IPS

From annual volunteer events to the annual Mandela Prize, awarded to two laureates each year who have profoundly impacted their communities by serving humanity, speakers, including the award recipients, the Secretary-General and the chair of the Nelson Mandela Foundation, all reflected on Mandela’s legacy on their own lives and on the UN.

In Secretary-General António Guterres’ remarks to the General Assembly at their plenary meeting, he said, “Power is not a personal possession to be harbored. Power is about lifting others up; it’s about what we can achieve with one another and for one another. Power is about people.” He echoed Mandela’s belief in collective grassroots action to deliver power to the powerless, encouraging member states to bring these principles into practice.

Dr. Naledi Pandor, chair of the Nelson Mandela Foundation, similarly called for action against injustice and inequality. She recalled how the United Nations aided South Africa in ending apartheid as it “stood against apartheid domination, not through arms but through bringing its undeniable moral weight into combat against injustice. That boldness, that courage is needed more and more today.”

Nelson Mandela, then Deputy President of the African National Congress of South Africa, raises his fist in the air while addressing the Special Committee Against Apartheid in the General Assembly Hall, June 22, 1990. Global alliance CIVICUS commemorated Mandela Day with a reminder that many rights defenders are jailed and intimidated. Credit: UN Photo/Pernaca Sudhakaran

Nelson Mandela, then Deputy President of the African National Congress of South Africa, raises his fist in the air while addressing the Special Committee Against Apartheid in the General Assembly Hall, June 22, 1990. Credit: UN Photo/Pernaca Sudhakaran

Pandor went on to recall Mandela’s political views beyond South Africa—his demand for global equity extended to all, and reflecting on how he might feel about the current state of the world, she quoted his 1990 speech to the UN Special Committee Against Apartheid.

Mandela said, “We also take this opportunity to extend warm greetings to all others who fight for their liberation and their human rights, including the peoples of Palestine and Western Sahara. We commend their struggles to you, convinced that we are all moved by the fact that freedom is indivisible, convinced that the denial of the rights of one diminishes the freedom of others.”

Mandela was a strong supporter of Palestine, often comparing its struggle with South Africa’s. South Africa, even after his death, maintained close ties to Palestine and brought the case of genocide against Israel to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in 2024.

The 2025 Nelson Mandela laureates, Brenda Reynolds of Saulteaux First Nation and Canada and Kennedy Odede of Kenya, both spoke about how Mandela inspired their respective work. Reynolds, a social worker by trade, led the establishment of a national, culturally grounded mental health initiative for survivors of Indian residential schools.

Reynolds described her work with survivors as an example of Mandela’s notion of moving forward from resentment towards progress—as people found peace with their experiences, they were able to recover and lift up their communities from oppression. She described this as a process of peacebuilding within people, saying, “peace begins with individuals, and from there, you can find peace within your family and within your communities.”

Odede, who founded Kenya’s largest grassroots movement, Shining Hope For Communities (SHOFCO), to empower struggling urban communities, shared how Mandela’s words and experience with struggle inspired him to build within his own life. He found creative ways to organize communities around simple things like soccer, providing hope to people in dire situations.

The representative for The Gambia, who spoke on behalf of the African states, called upon the UN to adhere to Mandela’s principles, particularly on poverty as a man-made horror that can and must be removed by actions of human beings. The representative warned of extreme poverty on the rise, centering the “developing countries and middle-income countries” suffering the most “with unemployment rates beyond records.”

He said, “It is time for solidarity, partnerships and genuine actions where they are most needed,” asserting that poverty and underdevelopment were huge perpetuators of racism, therefore continuing a vicious cycle that oppressed people.

The representative argued, “rising inequity and progressive discrimination are not inevitable; they are a result of decades of policies and dynamics emanating from colonialism, appetite, and discrimination.” Criticizing these practices as misaligned with the UN charter, he pushed the UN to renew their commitment to progressing social development by redistributing wealth.

As the world commemorates Nelson Mandela’s enduring legacy, the message resonating from this year’s observance is clear: his vision of freedom—rooted in dignity, justice and collective responsibility—demands more than remembrance; it requires action. From prison reform to poverty alleviation to indigenous healing to grassroots empowerment, Mandela’s ideals continue to challenge the global community to uphold humanity over power and compassion over indifference. In honoring his life, the UN and its member states are reminded that freedom is not static—it is a continual struggle, a shared pursuit and a moral obligation.

IPS UN Bureau Report

  Source

UN Funding Crisis Threatens Work of Human Rights Council

Posted on by admin

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

Opinion

The Human Rights Council is an intergovernmental body within the UN system responsible for strengthening the promotion and protection of human rights around the globe, and for addressing situations of human rights violations, and making recommendations on them, according to the UN. It has the ability to discuss all thematic human rights issues and situations that require its attention throughout the year. It meets at the United Nations Office at Geneva (UNOG).

NEW YORK / GENEVA, Jul 11 2025 (IPS) – The United Nations Human Rights Council (HRC) has expressed concern at the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights’ announcement that certain activities mandated by the council cannot be delivered due to a lack of funding. The council has sought clarity on why certain activities had been singled out.

Among the activities the commissioner says can’t be delivered is the commission of inquiry on grave abuses in Eastern Congo, an important initiative created—at least on paper—at an emergency session of the HRC in February in response to an appeal by Congolese, regional, and international rights groups.

The establishment of the commission offered a glimmer of hope in the face of grave and ongoing atrocities in the region, and it was hoped it might be an important step toward ending the cycle of abuse and impunity and delivering justice and reparations for victims and survivors.

It is not only the activities highlighted by the commissioner that are impacted by the funding crisis, however. Virtually all the HRC’s work has been affected, with investigations into rights abuses—for example in Sudan, Palestine, and Ukraine—reportedly operating at approximately 30-60 percent of capacity.

In discussions about the proposed cuts, several states—notably those credibly accused of rights abuses—have sought to use the financial crisis as cover to attack the council’s country-focused investigative mandates or undermine the Office of the High Commissioner’s broader work and independence. For example, Eritrea invoked the crisis in its ultimately unsuccessful effort to end council scrutiny of its own dismal rights record.

Amid discussions on the current crisis, there has been little reflection among states on how the UN got into this mess. States failing to pay their membership contributions, or failing to pay on time, has compounded the chronic underfunding of the UN’s human rights pillar over decades.

The United States’ failure to pay virtually anything at the moment, followed by China’s late payments, bear the greatest responsibility for the current financial shortfall given their contributions account for nearly half of the UN’s budget.

But they are not alone: 79 countries reportedly still haven’t paid their fees for 2025 (expected in February). Among those that haven’t yet paid this year are Eritrea, Iran, Cuba, Russia, and others that have used the crisis to take aim at the council’s country mandates or to undermine the work or independence of the high commissioner’s office.

Rather than seeking to meddle in the office’s work or reduce the HRC’s scrutiny of crises, states should work with the UN to ensure funds are available for at least partial delivery of all activities they mandate through the council, particularly in emergencies.

Urgent investigations into situations of mass atrocities are key tools for prevention, protection, and supporting access to justice. They cannot wait until the financial crisis blows over.

Lucy McKernan is United Nations Deputy Director, Advocacy, Human Rights Watch (HRW), and Hilary Power is UN Geneva Director, HRW

IPS UN Bureau

  Source

Time to Rethink Health Financing: It’s Not Just a Public Sector Concern

Posted on by admin

Civil Society, Economy & Trade, Global, Global Governance, Headlines, Health, Human Rights, Humanitarian Emergencies, International Justice, IPS UN: Inside the Glasshouse, Sustainable Development Goals, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion

Parents and caregivers line up with their children at an immunization centre in Janakpur, southern Nepal. Meanwhile recent funding cuts have caused “severe disruptions” to health services in almost three-quarters of all countries, according to the head of the UN World Health Organization (WHO), Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus. April 2025. Credit: UNICEF

LONDON, Jun 19 2025 (IPS) – As G7 leaders of the world’s wealthiest nations wrapped up their summit in Kananaskis June 16, a critical issue was absent from the agenda: the future of global health financing.

Amid escalating geopolitical tensions, trade conflicts and cuts to development aid, health has been sidelined – less than five years since COVID-19 devastated lives, health systems and economies.

With the fiscal space for health shrinking in over 69 countries, it’s time to recognise that health financing is no longer solely a public sector concern; it is a fundamental pillar of economic productivity, stability, and resilience.

A glimmer of hope has emerged from South Africa, the current G20 Presidency host, and from the World Health Organization (WHO). A landmark health financing resolution, adopted at last month’s World Health Assembly calls on countries to take ownership of their health funding and increase domestic investment.

While this is a promising step, the prevailing discourse continues to rely on outdated solutions which are often slow to implement and fall short of what is needed.

Invest Smarter, Not Just More, in Health

Recent trends among G20 countries show that annual healthcare expenditure is actually declining across member states. In 2022, health expenditure dropped in 18 out of 20 G20 nations, leading to increased out-of-pocket expenses for citizens.

While countries like Japan, Australia, and Canada demonstrate a direct correlation between higher per capita health expenditure and increased life expectancy, others, such as Russia, India, and South Africa, show the opposite.

This disparity underscores a crucial point: the quality and efficiency of investment matters more than quantity. Smart investment encompasses efficient resource allocation, equitable access to affordable care, effective disease prevention and management, and broader determinants of health like lifestyle, education, and environmental factors.

Achieving positive outcomes hinges on balancing health funding – the operational costs – with sustainable health financing – the capital costs.

Private capital is already moving into health, what’s missing is coordination and strategic alignment

Despite the surge in healthcare private equity reaching USD 480 billion between 2020 and 2024, many in the sector remain unaware of this significant shift. Recent G20 efforts have focused on innovative financing tools, but what’s truly needed are systemic reforms that reframe health as a core pillar of financial stability, economic resilience, and geopolitical security, not just a public service.

This year’s annual Health20 Summit at the WHO, supporting the G20 Health and Finance Ministers Meetings, addresses this need by launching a new compass for health financing: a groundbreaking report on the “Health Taxonomy – A Common Investment Toolkit to Scale Up Future Investments in Health.”

Why do we need an investment map for health?

The answer is simple: since the first ever G20 global health discussions under Germany’s G20 Presidency in 2017, there has been no consistent effort to rethink or coordinate investments. G20 countries still lack a strategic dialogue between governments, health and finance ministries, investors and the private sector.

Market-Driven, Government-Incentivised: The Path Forward

Building on the European Union’s Green Taxonomy, the health taxonomy aims to foster a shared understanding and common language among governments, companies, and investors to drive sustainable health financing. Investors, Asset Managers, Venture Capitalists, G20 Ministries of Health and Finance, Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs), and International Organisations broadly agree that a market-driven taxonomy is both credible and practical.

Governments can have greater confidence knowing it has been tested with investors and is grounded in market realities.

The Health Taxonomy report identifies a key barrier to progress: the fundamental confusion between health funding and health financing: Health financing refers to the system that manages health investments, such as raising revenue, pooling resources and purchasing services. In contrast, health funding refers to the actual sources of money.

Increasing health funding alone will not improve health outcomes if the financing system is poorly designed. Conversely, a well-developed health financing framework won’t succeed without sufficient funding. Both are essential and must work together.

The health taxonomy has the potential to serve as a vital tool for policy planning sessions, strategic boardroom discussions and investment committees, thereby enabling health to be readily integrated into existing portfolios and strategies. It could also support more systematic assessments of health-related risks and economic impacts, including through existing processes like the IMF’s Article IV consultations and other macroeconomic surveillance frameworks.

The report urges leading G20 health and finance ministers to rethink and align on joint principles for health funding and financing.

The next pandemic could be more severe, more persistent, and more costly. Failure to invest adequately in health before the next crisis is a systemic risk our leaders can no longer afford to ignore.

Hatice Beton is Co-Founder, H20Summit; Roberto Durán-Fernández; PhD, is Tec de Monterrey School of Government, Former Member of the WHO’s Economic Council; Dennis Ostwald is Founder & CEO, WifOR Institute (Germany); Rifat Atun is Professor of Global Health Systems, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health

IPS UN Bureau

  Source

Agenda for Nuclear Non-Proliferation Review Conference Still Unclear

Posted on by admin

Aid, Armed Conflicts, Civil Society, Editors’ Choice, Featured, Global, Headlines, Human Rights, International Justice, IPS UN: Inside the Glasshouse, Nuclear Disarmament, Nuclear Energy – Nuclear Weapons, Peace, Sustainable Development Goals, TerraViva United Nations

Nuclear Disarmament

The closing session of the Preparatory Committee for the 2026 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). Credit: UN TV

The closing session of the Preparatory Committee for the 2026 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). Credit: UN TV

NEW YORK, May 21 2025 (IPS) – The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons must not be allowed to collapse under the weight of geopolitical cynicism, the preparatory committee at the UN heard.

This year, the Third Session of the Preparatory Committee for the 2026 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) (April 28-May 9) was intended to address procedural issues related to the treaty and the upcoming conference next year. The meeting was the third and final preparatory session before the review conference next year. As such, the session was an opportunity for countries to reaffirm the principles of the NPT by agreement.

Throughout the two weeks, delegations expressed their positions and deliberated over recommendations that would shape the agenda for the 2026 conference. Beyond member states, other stakeholders such as civil society groups were emphatic in expressing the urgency of the nuclear issue and calling for member states to take action.

“The continued existence of nuclear weapons remains one of the most urgent and existential dangers facing life on this planet,” said Florian Eblenkamp, an advocacy officer for the International Coalition Against Nuclear Weapons (ICAN). He went further to state, “The non-proliferation norm must not be allowed to collapse under the weight of geopolitical cynicism. If the NPT is to have a future, States Parties must send an unambiguous signal: Nuclear weapons are not to be spread. Not to be shared. Not to be normalized.”

The committee’s chair, Ambassador Harold Agyeman, who serves as the Permanent Representative of Ghana to the United Nations, told reporters early on that the success of the review conference in 2026 would be “dependent on the political will of state parties” in demonstrating progress on their obligations of the treaty and to “strengthen accountability for the related implementation of existing commitments.”

“Indeed, many around the world are concerned by the lack of raw progress on nuclear disarmament, and emerging proliferations risk that could undermine the hard-won norms established to bring about a world free of nuclear weapons and a regime to achieve that goal,” said Agyeman.

The third preparatory session took place in a time of increasing global anxiety over nuclear proliferation and even escalation. The most recent conflict between India and Pakistan has the world on edge that two nuclear powers might engage in war. Since April, Iran and the United States have been in negotiations over a new nuclear deal, which at times has seen both sides at a deadlock over limiting Iran’s nuclear programme.

Given that context, plus pre-existing tensions between other global powers, such as Russia and the war in Ukraine, this session was an opportunity for countries to act with urgency towards non-proliferation and to respect their obligations under the NPT. By the end of the conference, however, it seemed no agreement was reached. Revised recommendations for the review conference failed to reach consensus. This continues a concerning pattern of preparatory meetings that also failed to adopt an outcome.

As the meeting reached its conclusion on May 9, delegations expressed regret that the draft agreement did not reach consensus. “We regret that the desired breakthrough on transparency and accountability in the context of the strengthened due process was not reached,” said one delegate from Egypt. “The discussion was mature and based itself on mutual respect and commitment to multilateralism.

Many delegations made sure to reaffirm their commitment to the NPT and to strengthening the review process. Yet there was also a recurring acknowledgement of the “complex geopolitical situation” that presented a challenge in reaching consensus.

Civil society organizations have also been vocal in their disappointment at the lack of agreement or outcome document. ICAN stated that the lack of an agreement reflected a “horrifying lack of urgency in response to current risks.” Reaching Critical Will went further to criticize nuclear-armed states for refusing to comply with international law and their obligations to the NPT, which calls for them to eliminate nuclear weapons.

The NPT Review Conference (RevCon) is expected to be held in New York from 27 April to 22 May 2026. The PrepComm nominated Vietnam to chair the RevCon. Ambassador Dang Hoang Giang, Permanent Representative of Vietnam to the United Nations, stated that the presidency would be “characterized by inclusive, transparent, and balanced proceedings” that would ensure that the perspectives and interests of all state parties would be respected.

“The road ahead will be challenging, but we remain confident that through collective wisdom and shared determination, meaningful progress is not only possible but achievable. A robust and effective treaty ensures a safer and more secure work for everyone,” said Giang.

The presence—and threat—of nuclear weapons looms large. For good reason, they cannot simply be relegated to history as a relic of hubris and ambition when we can observe their influence in modern geopolitics. If the spirit for nuclear nonproliferation is indeed still there, then the international community must be vigilant in advocating for the NPT and other disarmament treaties, rather than let a small percentage of parties dictate the global agenda. This must be an ongoing process, lest we see the continued undermining of nonproliferation and multilateralism.

Note: This article is brought to you by IPS Noram in collaboration with INPS Japan and Soka Gakkai International in consultative status with ECOSOC.

IPS UN Bureau Report

IPS UN Bureau, IPS UN Bureau Report, NUCLEAR ABOLITION

  Source

UN Needs to Protect its Vital, Yet Underfunded, Human Rights Work

Posted on by admin

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

Opinion

Louis Charbonneau is UN director, Human Rights Watch

Karla Quintana (centre), head of the Independent Institution on Missing Persons in Syria, visits Al Marjeh Square in Damascus, a place where families of missing persons display photos in the hope of finding their loved ones. Credit: IIMP Syria

May 8 2025 (IPS) – Major-power cutbacks and delayed payments amidst conflict and insecurity are testing the very principles and frameworks upon which the international human rights infrastructure was built nearly 80 years ago.

Human rights need defending now more than ever, which is why the United Nations leadership needs to ensure that its efforts to cut costs don’t jeopardize the UN’s critical human rights work.

The Trump administration’s review of US engagement with multilateral organizations and its refusal to pay assessed UN contributions—which account for 22 percent of the UN’s regular budget—have pushed the cash-strapped international organization into a full-blown financial crisis.

China, the second biggest contributor, continues to pay but has been delaying payments, exacerbating the UN’s years-long liquidity crisis. With widespread layoffs looming, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has been forced to dig deep for cost-saving measures.

A six-page memo seen by Human Rights Watch—entitled “UN80 structural changes and programmatic realignment” and marked as “Strictly Confidential”—outlines proposals for eliminating redundancies and unnecessary costs across the UN.

The proposals include consolidating apparently overlapping mandates, reducing the UN’s presence in expensive locations like New York City, and cutting some senior posts.

While some UN80 proposals have merit, the section on human rights is worrying. It suggests downgrading and cutting several senior human rights posts and merging different activities. But at a time when rights crises are multiplying and populist leaders hostile to rights are proliferating, any reduction of the UN’s human rights capacities would be shortsighted.

Efficiency and cost-effectiveness are important, but the UN’s human rights work has long been grossly underfunded and understaffed. The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights gets just 5 percent of the UN’s regular budget.

Countless lives depend on its investigations and monitoring, which help deter abuses in often ignored or inaccessible locales. Investigations of war crimes and other atrocities in places like Sudan, Ukraine, Israel/Palestine, and elsewhere are already struggling amidst a UN-wide hiring freeze and pre-Trump liquidity shortfall.

For years, Russia and China have lobbied to defund the UN’s human rights work. There is now a risk that the United States, which has gutted its own funding for human rights worldwide, will no longer oppose these efforts and will instead enable them.

During these trying times, the UN should be reminding the world that its decades-long commitment to human rights is unwavering.

IPS UN Bureau

  Source

Genocide Prevention & Responsibility to Protect

Posted on by admin

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

Opinion

Commemorating Genocide Prevention and Awareness Month

NEW YORK, Apr 15 2025 (IPS) – April marks Genocide Prevention and Awareness Month, a time to reflect on the history, causes and victims of past genocides and to mobilize the necessary resolve to confront risks facing populations around the world today who face the threat of genocide and other mass atrocity crimes not for anything they have done, but for who they are.

As we solemnly observe this month of commemoration, we also reflect on the 20th anniversary of the UN General Assembly’s unanimous adoption of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) principle – a concept which emerged in particular response to the international community’s failure to prevent the atrocity crimes committed in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia.

By shifting the focus to every state’s ‘responsibility to protect’ rather than the big powers’ ‘right to intervene,’ by emphasizing prevention as well as reaction, and by committing to international collective action – including, when necessary, through the collective security provisions of the UN Charter – R2P made possible a global consensus completely lacking in previous decades.

The 2005 World Summit brought us closer than ever to translating the post-Holocaust dream of “never again” into a meaningful reality. It was a significant diplomatic achievement for all heads of state and government worldwide to acknowledge that genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and ethnic cleansing – even when committed within a sovereign state – are matters of international concern and thus demand timely and decisive response.

But 20 years later – with all too obvious horrors and civilian suffering still occurring in Gaza, Sudan, the DRC, Myanmar and elsewhere – it is clear that R2P is still at best a work in progress. It is time to reflect on what we have learned about preventing and responding to the atrocity crimes outlined in the World Summit Outcome Document, and to focus on how we can do better.

On the plus side, considerable progress has been made in our collective knowledge of the risk factors, causes and dynamics that drive mass atrocity crimes and in enhancing our responsiveness to warning signs, including through the development of the UN’s Framework of Analysis for Atrocity Crimes. There is now a solid understanding of the wide range of preventive measures available, which includes not only a response to imminent and emerging risks, but also instituting policies, practices and structures that build long-term societal resilience to atrocity crimes.

Alongside these advances is a growing awareness that the different tools available for changing the behavior of would-be perpetrators, or for making victims less vulnerable, must be situated in a more coherent preventive strategy that is tailored to each context.

Moreover, the atrocity prevention agenda has been operationalized across the UN system. The creation of the Joint Office on Genocide Prevention and the Responsibility to Protect has been central to strengthening the UN’s early warning capabilities, as well as for developing the conceptual and practical aspects of R2P.

Since the inception of the Special Adviser on the Responsibility to Protect role, successive Special Advisers have been instrumental in identifying risk factors and clarifying best practices by states, regional organizations and the UN system in response to the threat of atrocity crimes.

In addition, the regular cycle of UN Secretary-General reports and General Assembly debates has reinforced the principle and fostered greater consensus and shared understanding within the UN system. The Group of Friends of R2P, with over 55 members from across all regions, is an important mobilizing force within the UN to advance effective atrocity crime prevention and response.

Over 60 countries from all regions of the world, along with the European Union and Organization of American States, have also appointed an R2P Focal Point, an important step for institutionalizing atrocity prevention at the national level. The appointment of a national R2P Focal Point is crucial for strengthening domestic capacity to fulfill the responsibility to protect, including by improving intra-governmental and inter-governmental efforts to prevent and halt atrocity crimes.

Furthermore, the international community has also made strides in its willingness and capacity to hold perpetrators responsible through international investigative bodies and mechanisms, international courts and tribunals, and in national courts under the principle of universal jurisdiction. Transitional justice and memorialization also remain hallmarks of a broader commitment to deal with the past and promote truth, justice and non-recurrence.

Nonetheless, for all these significant institutional advances, we are all acutely aware that, 20 years on from the World Summit, the principle of R2P is under acute strain. There is a deeply troubling disconnect between the unanimous commitment to protecting populations from atrocity crimes and achieving consistent implementation and concrete preventive action.

All too often, effective national, regional and international action is inhibited by self-interested political arguments advanced in key institutions with a capacity to make a difference, including the UN Security Council. When principles and their practical application are contested it is time, more than ever, for UN member states to stand firm and do the hard work of continuing to find and build the consensus needed to protect populations at risk.

Moreover, there is a worrying decline in attention to atrocity crime prevention and the role of the Special Adviser on R2P within the UN Secretariat. This stands in stark contrast to the still very strong support from the great majority of UN member states and from civil society, human rights defenders, affected communities and victims’ and survivors’ groups around the world.

To consolidate the effectiveness of R2P, there is much more that needs to be done, and the work needs to start at home – not least at the UN Headquarters, but also on a national and regional level. At the core of R2P is a responsibility to invest in the institutional architecture to prevent the drivers of atrocity crimes from emerging or intensifying.

This anniversary year presents a crucial opportunity for the UN system, and particularly the UN Secretary-General and the Secretariat, to demonstrate ongoing commitment to fulfilling the responsibility to protect across all regions of the world.

The UN has proven time and again that it can mobilize resources and expertise to safeguard those at risk, with a notable track record of defending human rights and protecting vulnerable populations despite facing immense challenges. Rather than retreating from these efforts, it is critical that the UN and its member states redouble them, by honing and strengthening the capabilities needed to deliver effective prevention and response. Political and ideological differences must not be allowed to distract us from identifying signs of increased risk, wherever they may be, and taking early action to prevent atrocity crimes.

The strong commitments made in 2005 are as relevant today as they were 20 years ago. At a time of escalating conflicts, as well as threats to multilateralism and international justice, the UN Secretary-General and the UN must provide an alternative vision for the future in which a key element is the consistent implementation of R2P.

The future of R2P will only be secured if we – the UN system, intergovernmental and regional organizations, governments, civil society organizations and affected communities – fight for it and generate the political will to act. It would be a tragedy to give in to cynicism and skepticism, to overlook the continuing power of R2P as an inspiring ideal and to abandon the goal of seeing it fully and effectively implemented in all its dimensions.

This month of commemoration must serve as a reminder that indifference and inaction should never be an acceptable response whenever and wherever populations face the threat of genocide and other atrocity crimes.

Professor Gareth Evans is Co-Chair, International Advisory Board, Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect; Dr. Jennifer Welsh is Chair, International Advisory Board, Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect.

IPS UN Bureau

  Source